[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

Mossadegh was aliging with the Soviets and the threat of the Soviets with a warm water port was enough that we offed him. I stand by the decision as the correct move because it kept the Soviets out of the Indian Ocean.

That's fine, but if you look at it from Iran's point of view, it didn't really set the table for future constructive relations. You could see why they would be pissed off.

Bart wrote:

The US ship was not in Iranian waters according to the UN and the problem with the airliner was that the aircrew didn't understand that a US Navy ship was querying them on their intent. There's also been some suspicion that the plane was filled with corpses and that this was some sort of PR stunt on the part of the Iranian regime. This is because some of the bodies recovered had body temperatures that were lower that the surrounding waters - indicative of post mortem refrigeration.

I'm sorry, according to the UN? Puh-leeze. Some suspicion the plane was filled wiht corpses? That's a complete fairy tale. But again, conspiracy thories aside, you could see why Iranians would be pissed off.

Oh and I almost forgot that the US backd Saddam in his invasion of Iran. That pissed off the Iranians too.

Bart wrote:

Iran is in a tought spot, true. Bearing that in mind have you noticed how polite they've been for the past decade?

I don't realy think of Ahmadinejad as polite myself. You could argue the best favour that the US ever did for Iran was to invade and then (incompetently) occupy Iraq.

Bart wrote:

I'm not taking Iran's side--it is after all an Islamic theocracy. On the other hand, I'm not going to swallow a bunch of FOX News propaganda on the subject either, like they all did on Iraq.

Ahmaddinejad is a lot like Bush, according to one Iranian I know. A hard-core conservative who makes the citizens of Iran facepalm every time he opens his mouth. But he's just a symptom. The mullahs are the problem. Ratcheting down the existential threat of annihilation posed by the US would weaken the mullahs in my opinion.

I could be wrong--I don't really know what's happening with the intel.

[CommanderSock]

I copied and pasted this off washington post comment section by tarquinis1:

Quote:

- Invasion by Russia and Britain in 1914-1918 ostensibly to secure Iran's oil fields

- Invasion again by Russia and Britain in 1941 to take over Iranian oil fields

- Democratic Government overthrown by US in CIA Operation Ajax, 1953: US puts hated Shah back on the throne from his then current exile

-France reneges on nuclear power contracts despite NPT obligations 1979

- Invasion by Iraq – up to 500,000s killed by Iraq, West helps Iraq, 1980: Rumsfield goes to Iraq to shake Saddam’s hand in well-known picture

-Chemical weapons attack by Iraq and the west remains silent, 1980 onwards

- US kills 290 Iranian civilians when a US naval ship, in Iranian waters, shoots down an Iranian passenger plane. The US awards medals to those who killed the Iranian civilians. 1988

-US shelters thousands of Iranian MEK terrorists in Iraq and allows them to operate against Iran, 2003 onwards

-Nuclear weapon neighbors tolerated or abetted: Russia, and non-NPT states Israel, India, Pakistan

-Major US armies and air forces currently based on their east and west frontiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and powerful US naval forces in the Persian Gulf (Bahrain)

-Threat of direct nuclear attack by Israel

If I was Iranian I would support my government possessing nukes too, been fucked over too many times not to have them.

[ShepherdsDog]

Quote:

If I was Iranian I would support my government possessing nukes too, been fucked over too many times not to have them.

Your reasoning justifies Israel's reasons for having nuclear weapons too.

[CommanderSock]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

Quote:

If I was Iranian I would support my government possessing nukes too, been fucked over too many times not to have them.

Your reasoning justifies Israel's reasons for having nuclear weapons too.

And they do have nuclear weapons. Good for them.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

Quote:

If I was Iranian I would support my government possessing nukes too, been fucked over too many times not to have them.

Your reasoning justifies Israel's reasons for having nuclear weapons too.

I don't like the way they got 'em. And I still think the world would be a better place wihtout any of them. But I can't deny that they, if anyone, need them.

Little leery of Pakistan having them, that's for sure. But that's another topic.

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

Quote:

If I was Iranian I would support my government possessing nukes too, been fucked over too many times not to have them.

Your reasoning justifies Israel's reasons for having nuclear weapons too.

[ShepherdsDog]

I thought you were more of the circle jerk type.

it's always nice when someone adds something useful to a conversation.. You should try it Andy, you may find you like it .

[andyt]

You might try actually thinking about what I said. "Iran needs nukes because it feels threatened by the nukes Israel already has so Israel needs those nukes to deter Iran." Not really working out for Israel as planned, is it?

[ShepherdsDog]

And you don't seem to be aware of the fact, that at the time Israel developed its nukes, Iran wasn't even in the picture as a threat. In fact, it was a close ally of Israel. Israel needs its weapons because it can't rely on anyone else to secure its existence. Allies have become enemies, enemies have become allies and other 'allies'(the Americans) have tried selling Israel down the river. there is nothing circular at all in the reasoning. There has always been a threat to Israel, since its founding

[CommanderSock]

Quote:

And you don't seem to be aware of the fact, that at the time Israel developed its nukes, Iran wasn't even in the picture as a threat. In fact, it was a close ally of Israel. Israel needs its weapons because it can't rely on anyone else to secure its existence. Allies have become enemies, enemies have become allies and other 'allies'(the Americans) have tried selling Israel down the river. there is nothing circular at all in the reasoning. There has always been a threat to Israel, since its founding

So is Iran. They are surrounded by Arab nations which are highly hostile to them. They are one of the major oil exporters in the world and have been invaded multiple times by western powers, directly and through proxy. They've had their leaders toppled by an American security organization. They've been invaded by their neighbours with US backing.

Why shouldn't they posses nukes to protect themselves?

[andyt]

At some point everybody is going to have nukes. Don't see how you can stuff that genie back in the bottle.