How Long Will Iran Hold the British Sailors?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The USA only normalize relations with Iraq because Iraq was losing to Iran and Reagan wisely decided Iran could not be allowed to win. Only THEN.....did we start helping Iraq. yet you paint a picture that the USA help Iraq invade Iran. No...Iraq did that by themselves. Reagan intervened only when it became clear the Iranians were winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

His point was that America aided Iran's foe while she was at war. You agree with this and quibble over semantics. We obviously have issues with those who aid our enemies in times of war. In fact, right-wingers are railing against Iran for supposedly helping Iraq today, while admitting as you did above that we did the exact same thing 25 years ago. All weatherman is asking is for some intellectual honesty when it comes to assessing current events without wrapping yourself in the flag first and assuming we're in the right and our "enemy" is always in the wrong. I for one think his request is legitimate.

You really need to see the forest through the trees. The whole point was that Iran has legitimate reasons to distrust the US. And here you yourself are pointing out how Iraq launched a preemptive war against Iran over a border dispute and USA came to Iraq's aid once Iran got the upper hand against this aggressor. It's really quite laughable.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how your timeline changes the fact that likely Iran and Iraq would be much different places today had the US not been so cozy with Saddam for a decade

[/ QUOTE ]
The purpose of the timeline was to disprove the assertion that the USA sanctioned and supported the invasion of Iran by Iraq. Iraq did that all by themselves. All the USA did was save Iraq's bacon when they were losing....

The relationship between the USA-Iraq was not "Cozy". We were allies of convienance against a sick, depraved, and irrational Iran. Rememeber, Israel is the USA's closest ally in the Middle East and Iraq was STILL Israel's enemy while the Iraq-Iran War was occuring.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how your timeline changes the fact that likely Iran and Iraq would be much different places today had the US not been so cozy with Saddam for a decade

[/ QUOTE ]
The purpose of the timeline was to disprove the assertion that the USA sanctioned and supported the invasion of Iran by Iraq. Iraq did that all by themselves. All the USA did was save Iraq's bacon when they were losing....

The relationship between the USA-Iraq was not "Cozy". We were allies of convienance against a sick, depraved, and irrational Iran. Rememeber, Israel is the USA's closest ally in the Middle East and Iraq was STILL Israel's enemy while the Iraq-Iran War was occuring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you ignore the point of the argument and argue the fringe semantics.

Why don't you just say "Yeah, the US has been messing in Iran's backyard for decades, and whether they're right or wrong, I can at least admit they have reasons to be suspicious if not openly hostile towards the US." You know its true, we all know its true, and that is the only point at hand.

[theweatherman]

you are being incredibly dishonest with the facts. Painting with broad strokes in the ME is never the correct thing to do.

one point that I've corrected you on in other threads is that the government of Iran didn't take over the US embassy. It was a group of radical students who were acting outside of the, then largely still non-existent, Iranian government. Perpetuating your BS is ignorant and dishonest.

my time-line was an extremely brief overview of the revolution. It was not meant to be exhaustive or even really all that good. Nothing in the ME can be explained in only 75 words.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how your timeline changes the fact that likely Iran and Iraq would be much different places today had the US not been so cozy with Saddam for a decade

[/ QUOTE ]
The purpose of the timeline was to disprove the assertion that the USA sanctioned and supported the invasion of Iran by Iraq. Iraq did that all by themselves. All the USA did was save Iraq's bacon when they were losing....

The relationship between the USA-Iraq was not "Cozy". We were allies of convienance against a sick, depraved, and irrational Iran. Rememeber, Israel is the USA's closest ally in the Middle East and Iraq was STILL Israel's enemy while the Iraq-Iran War was occuring.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US and Europe enthusiastically sold weapons and equipment to Iraq in a last ditch effort to kill the revolution and reinstall the brutal shah. The history of American diplomacy during the cold war heavily favored dictators since they would obediently support US interests against the USSR.

For many in Iran, current regime > shah

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Semantics? I can't read your mind.
I can only read what YOU wrote... Perhaps you should take more care in the way you word things....

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you just say "Yeah, the US has been messing in Iran's backyard for decades, and whether they're right or wrong, I can at least admit they have reasons to be suspicious if not openly hostile towards the US." You know its true, we all know its true, and that is the only point at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely and with good reason.
Iran has been messing with the West and the West retaliates. Why can't you concede that? See if you can spot the pattern.

Iran steals property from our allies the British. So Britain and the UK join together to stage the 1950 Coup. And there was fertile ground for this coup to succeed. If the Iranian leader was truly popular like leftist nitwits like to claim, the coup would have failed like the the Bay of Pigs.
Cause: Iran steals British property by force
Effect: UK/USA retaliate with a coup


Some call this theft "nationalization". Theft is theft. It is my opinion that when a foreign government takes your property by force, then you have the right to retaliate, including going to war. The newly installed Shah of Iran reaped plenty of money from Iran's oil reserves after the Coup...

Things went fine with the new Shaw then that nitwit Jimmy Carter backstab the Shah. Then Khomeini took over, the American embassy was overun, and American personel were held hostage for 444 days. This called for payback.... So when Iran threaten to defeat Iraq, the USA stepped in to stop them. A smart move by Ronald Reagan.
Cause: Iran invades US territory (embassy) and holds Americans hostage for 444 days.
Effect: Reagan helps Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War.

When the Iranians started mining the Persian Gulf and attacking neutral ships, the USA sank half their Navy. Another wise move.
Cause: Iranians attack neutral ships.
Effect: The USA, with WIDE support from other Persian Gulf nations, sinks half their Navy.

Do you see the pattern?
Cause then effect. Cause then effect. Cause then effect.
See the pattern?

If you harm someone and they have the right to harm you back.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah... touche'.
Trying to play too many tables and write 2+2 posts at the same time.
Your claim of a strawman argument did not compute because I made no strawman argument.
Read these links so that you can use the the term strawman correctly next time. Then I can actually understand what you are talking about.

For your perusal...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

My point of my example is a person with a pattern of bad behavior is more likely to be guilty of bad behavior than someone that does not have that history.

[theweatherman]

and with a little less selectivist reading of history we see that

[ QUOTE ]
In summer of 1941 Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to prevent Iran from allying with the Axis powers. The Allies occupied Iran, securing a supply line to Russia, Iran's petroleum infrastructure, and forced the Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them

[/ QUOTE ]

All those reaction to Iranian aggression, looks like the UK threw the first punches and then pulled the US into the mix. As you say, [ QUOTE ]


If you harm someone and they have the right to harm you back.

[/ QUOTE ]


of course this [ QUOTE ]
Cause: Iran invades US territory (embassy) and holds Americans hostage for 444 days.

[/ QUOTE ] is probably going to end our little discussion since you refuse to admit historical facts. For the third time, the government of Iran never took over the US embassy. It was a radical group of students who pledged allegiance to the government. would you blame the US government if I pledged to the flag and then punched you in the face?

<font color="red"> *Edit:/Jman220: Personal Attack Deleted. </font>

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
My point of my example is a person with a pattern of bad behavior is more likely to be guilty of bad behavior than someone that does not have that history.



[/ QUOTE ]

OK. In the real world countries whatever they feel is in their interest. There is no good and bad guy as there are basically no laws to define this stuff. If Britain felt it in their interest to kidnap some mofos then they sure as hell would do it.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
would you blame the US government if I pledged to the flag and then punched you in the face?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the U.S. government encouraged you, supported you financially, and failed to stop you despite you repeatedly punching me in the face for 444 days on U.S. soil, then I would, in fact, blame the U.S. government.