Perspective on Iran

I really do not know very much about our history with Iran but it does not surprise me that our left leaning higher institutions of learning blame us for all the ill's in the world.

weren't these the same terrorists that were in Afghanistan during the half assed Russian coup? whatever they want to call themselves, it makes no difference

Someone want to explain this?

No. Just let him rant mindlessly. Why study history and get your facts straight? It only inhibits your ability to employ demagougery and hyperbole.

It's appeasement dammit.

Having historical context really helps in defeating the dumb notions of "they hate us because of our freedoms" and "Islamofascism."

I think it's safe to say that most garden variety terrorists hate the U.S. because of its foreign policy. I think, however, that many fringe terrorists do despise the American way of life. I recently finished reading a biography of Osama and he apparently grew to despise the West after living in Beruit and seeing how discos, drugs and alcohol (all of which he attributed to the West) corrupted the Lebanese youth. Moreover, there's no question that many "Islamofascists" think democracy is heretical and immoral, as society should be governed according to religious law and by religious leaders. Many "Islamofascists" think Westerners are hedonistic, impulsive, and immoral.

I don't know why people want to lump all terrorists together. Terrorist organizations are not a monolith. Each has its own reasons for being. So, to say ALL terrorist organizations hate Americans because of U.S. foreign policy is wrong IMO.

sorry again, sheriff. i was under the belief that the mulahadeen and al qaeda where one and the same. my bad

Didn't the whole thing start because of well...oil? If I remember right the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (or something like that) was some sort of joint agreement between Britain and Persia (ultimately Iran) for Britain to tap into Persia/Iran's oil reserves and in exchange citizens of Iran would get certain benefits (jobs, better schools, stronger infrastructure).

Which apparently didn't really happen (I don't know, I wasn't around in the '50s). And then some secular, democratic leader was elected in Iran who listened to the cries for nationalizing this oil company, which eventually became BP.

And the British got mad and sought the US' help. But not much really happened because President Truman had a "containment" philosophy. Yet within a few months Eisenhower became President and his "interventionist" philosophy bode well for the British and reinstated the pro-Western Shah; who was essentially a puppet. Until the Iranians had enough and overthrew him in the late 70s.

Or something like that

That's right. Democracy is all well and good but in the 1950s if you made a hint towards nationalizing American assets, the CIA was all over you like skank on Paris Hilton. At least the CIA was good at something.

The only nit I would pick is with the notion that Truman was completely against intervention. He was fine with stealing Italian elections and breaking strikes in France, and oh yeah, 100,000 Americans died in Korea (a war that Eisenhower quickly ended). His foreign policy had more to do with bourbon in the morning, bourbon in the evening than it did with any coherent philosophy.

Someone want to explain this?

There was a coup against the Afghani King by Afghani "communists" that preceded the Russian invasion (KGB, GRU). Of course, the mujahideen would not have been formed yet.

Please be aware that the vast, vast majority of those who made up the mujahideen still love America and wouldn't take a piss on Bid-Laden if he were on fire. The press sometimes leaves the impression that mujahideen = Al Qaeda.

I really do not know very much about our history with Iran but it does not surprise me that our left leaning higher institutions of learning blame us for all the ill's in the world.

I hear you. I distinctly remember profs. telling me we started WWII by provoking Japan, the South Koreans provoked North Korea into launching a surprise attack, communism was good and we just misunderstood it. But, with regard to Iran, we did screw things up. Mossadeq (sp?) wasn't a communist and we toppled him. I wonder where Iran would be right now if it never had a Shah and the Iranian Revolution.

There was a coup against the Afghani King by Afghani "communists" that preceded the Russian invasion (KGB, GRU). Of course, the mujahideen would not have been formed yet.

Please be aware that the vast, vast majority of those who made up the mujahideen still love America and wouldn't take a piss on Bid-Laden if he were on fire. The press sometimes leaves the impression that mujahideen = Al Qaeda.

Thanks...I meant does someone want to explain this to dmek :)

I think it's safe to say that most garden variety terrorists hate the U.S. because of its foreign policy. I think, however, that many fringe terrorists do despise the American way of life. I recently finished reading a biography of Osama and he apparently grew to despise the West after living in Beruit and seeing how discos, drugs and alcohol (all of which he attributed to the West) corrupted the Lebanese youth. Moreover, there's no question that many "Islamofascists" think democracy is heretical and immoral, as society should be governed according to religious law and by religious leaders. Many "Islamofascists" think Westerners are hedonistic, impulsive, and immoral.

I don't know why people want to lump all terrorists together. Terrorist organizations are not a monolith. Each has its own reasons for being. So, to say ALL terrorist organizations hate Americans because of U.S. foreign policy is wrong IMO.


I was watching Silence of the Lambs for the upteenth time right after 9-11 and I thought that Lecter's analysis of Buffalo Bill applied neatly to Bin Laden:

" DR. LECTER
First principles, Clarice. Simplicity.
Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each
particular thing, ask: What is it,
in itself, what is its nature...?
What does he do, this man you seek?

CLARICE
He kills w-

DR. LECTER
(sharply, as he stops)
No! That's incidental.

CLOSE ANGLE - TWO SHOT as he rises, pained by her ignorance,
and crosses to the bars.

DR. LECTER
What is the first and principal thing
he does, what need does he serve by
killing?

CLARICE
Anger, social resentment, sexual
frus-

DR. LECTER
No, he covets. That's his nature. "

Bin-laden is not infuriated by our freedom, nor does he care one bit about any Palestinians. He's envious of American power. He wants to restore the Muslim Caliphate. He wants to be Saladin. It galls him that a country like America which he views as Christian, would dominate the planet.