Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Loud Whispers]

Cameron delivers a speech on Britain's future.

[nanomage]

Yes, no other reason.

What do you know about the history of Iran-US relations? In the past 50 years, to narrow the scope.

ed: ah, we need to go back 60 years it seems.

well i know that the us-iran rift started in 1979 when Shah Pahlavi was overthrown by the abovementioned religious fanatics led by a guy who nicknamed US "Big Satan", and, for starts, took the entire US embassy hostage. Sorry for answering so late though.
edint:spelling

[10ebbor10]

It does start a bit earlier. In 1953, the US and UK overthrew the democratically elected governement and installed the shah as their puppet. Then heavily supported that regime fir the next 3 decades.

Also, Khomeini wasn't that anti-western in the beginning. Really, he lived in france for a while and was regularly seen on the BBC in a rather positive light.

[Sergarr]

I predict nanomage will say that the democracy in Iran was just a cover story and it was secretly ruled by religious fanatics.

Also that US has done nothing wrong with changing regimes in countries all over the world, because "they're doing to for the sake of spreading the democracy and the liberal values".

[nanomage]

So ushering a fundamentalist dictatorship and taking 52 diplomatic personnel hostage is ok because it was retaliation against the three-decade-old coup, which, by the way, itself was retaliation against seizure of British Persian Oil company?
And come on Khomeini was an antiwestern fundamentalist for all his lifetime, living in France has about the same to do with it as children and families of modern Russian officials (all profoundly anti-western) living in Europe - it was likely just a better place to live, even back then. Ayatollah was always pro-Sharia and Islamic revival and other stuff like that, opposed to westernization and liberalization.

2Sergarr US were certainly not about spreading the democracy back then, though perhaps pro-liberal values, depending on what values are liberal for you. Anyway, it isn't US who's throughly mentored its people in hatred toward Iran last 40 years, it's the other way around. And yeah the world could certainly benefit from a few overthrown regimes, even some democratically elected ones, that's for sure.

EDIT: Allright, it seems to me that I've been carried of a bit and entered a discussion which seems to have no other way than "agree to disagree", as you like saying it in your civilized western pluralistic world. At the start of all it, all I was gonna say was that Iran, Cuba,(now sadly)Russia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea or pretty much any USA-hater state hate USA only to be able to blame US for their own poverty, while in truth only their own governments' policies are responsible for that.

[Sergarr]

So ushering a fundamentalist dictatorship and taking 52 diplomatic personnel hostage is ok because it was retaliation against the three-decade-old coup, which, by the way, itself was retaliation against seizure of British Persian Oil company?
And come on Khomeini was an antiwestern fundamentalist for all his lifetime, living in France has about the same to do with it as children and families of modern Russian officials (all profoundly anti-western) living in Europe - it was likely just a better place to live, even back then. Ayatollah was always pro-Sharia and Islamic revival and other stuff like that, opposed to westernization and liberalization.

2Sergarr US were certainly not about spreading the democracy back then, though perhaps pro-liberal values, depending on what values are liberal for you. Anyway, it isn't US who's throughly mentored its people in hatred toward Iran last 40 years, it's the other way around. And yeah the world could certainly benefit from a few overthrown regimes, even some democratically elected ones, that's for sure.

EDIT: Allright, it seems to me that I've been carried of a bit and entered a discussion which seems to have no other way than "agree to disagree", as you like saying it in your civilized western pluralistic world. At the start of all it, all I was gonna say was that Iran, Cuba,(now sadly)Russia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea or pretty much any USA-hater state hate USA only to be able to blame US for their own poverty, while in truth only their own governments' policies are responsible for that.

...do you seriously believe that?

Do you seriously believe that US has not incited hatred in its people toward Iran? Do you remember the "axis of evil"?

Do you seriously believe that people outside of US should not be able to govern themselves and choose their own government? Your "the world could certainly benefit from a few overthrown regimes, even some democratically elected ones" implies that at least some people outside of US should be disallowed to vote for their own government!

Whatever your values are, they're pretty far from liberal.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

So now Russia is using chemical weapons... (My source is reliable enough to post that without prooflinks. Not 100% but reliable)

Why I am not fucking surprised?

[Dutchling]

(My source is reliable enough to post that without prooflinks)

I don't think that's how it works.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

(My source is reliable enough to post that without prooflinks)

I don't think that's how it works.

So what?

[scrdest]

(My source is reliable enough to post that without prooflinks)

I don't think that's how it works.

So what?

So we still don't have to believe it on your word alone.

[Sergarr]

What kind of chemical weapons are we speaking of?

[cerapa]

It's not very related to any discussions, but every time I come here, malwarebytes blocks a site called onpress.info. Googling reveals it to be some russian website. Does a frequent poster in this thread have an avatar hosted there or something?

[Sheb]

Yeah, technically CS gas is a chemical weapon (and armed forces are banned tu use it other than for crowd control), but I wouldn't feel that bad if that's what they're using.

[nanomage]

Just so that my position is clear, not to incite further flame:

in truth only their own governments' policies are responsible for that.

...do you seriously believe that?

Yes, I hold it to be very true.

Do you seriously believe that US has not incited hatred in its people toward Iran? Do you remember the "axis of evil"?

There was no "axis of evil" talk when Iran wasn't a fundamentalist country preaching antisemitism (Yes antisemitism is a big deal).

Do you seriously believe that people outside of US should not be able to govern themselves and choose their own government? Your "the world could certainly benefit from a few overthrown regimes, even some democratically elected ones" implies that at least some people outside of US should be disallowed to vote for their own government!

Whatever your values are, they're pretty far from liberal.

Yes, I believe that some people should be disallowed to vote, both outside the USA and inside. This part of my values is certainly not liberal, I agree.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Hm.. That was my avatar
As for chemical weapons, don't forget that Russia used poisonous gas  against its own citizens in Moscow. Why shouldn't they use it in Ukraine?

I  do hope that my source is wrong... but doubt it.

PS. Minus one reliable source. Someone will receive some very harsh words from me next time he calls