Iran crisis; its important to know the origins

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_WVtpao0KSM

I'd ask anybody who fears Iran or thinks we are acting in the right manner towards Iran and countries like Iran just to take 10 minutes out of their time and watch this fantastic video, briefly explaining the hatred between both sides, how it came about and what resulted from it. Those who believe in our foreign policy now (going into Iraq, staying in Afghanistan, going into Libya, going into Iran perhaps) ought to watch and listen closely to this video.

I post this because if you look at the news and whats happening with US and EU sanctions being put on Iran, I feel the war propaganda is being stepped up to prepare us for an invasion of Iran within the next few years (its almost daily now in the newspapers and on television) just like it was with Iraq in 2002 to 2003. And of course, like with the invasion of Iraq, its very hard to argue in a climate of war that the war is wrong and unjust because you are shouted down as being 'disloyal' to your country. Before we reach that stage, just have a look into the facts.

Have a look, and tell me what you think concerning foreign policy 'blowback'.

Thoughts?

[Rozi]

Usually I don't bothered reading your threads Dan, but I think I've found some common ground here. This spans a few elements I'm fairly interested in: The completely blind way people follow the media, the way people build history around what they want to and the almost inevitable future conflict with Iran. This video is quite interesting but it's fairly one sided, although they do touch on the fact both sides are in fault towards the end. I agree that sanctions of the sort we're imposing now and are going to step up are wrong. Fundamentally I disagree with sanctioning whole countries, as it has little to no effect on the leaders, who in these situations obviously have little issue over the maltreatment of their citizens.

There is a bit of a glaring hole in this video though - what about the issue of nuclear weapons and the fact that Iran has said it is not against using them? I'm totally against ANYONE having nuclear weapons, although I do realise we will never ever live again in a world where nuclear weapons do not exist. As the video touches upon in the end, I think we should help the people of Iran, but of course there is no simple answer to this. We cannot intervene in Iran - as the iranians said themselves in the occupation of the American Embassy in the 70's - and to try and oust the leader with our help would be essentially what the Americans did.

The seemingly straightforward answer would be to completely withdraw all foreign troops from the middle east - but this is inevitably going to result in huge problems, and fighting between the countries (as the video states, Iran and Iraq were keen to fight in the past). Also, who's to say Iran wont spend the next 20 years building their army, expanding, getting stronger until it gets to the point that the whole of NATO has to get involved and we end up with ahumongouslylarger problem than we have now? I guess as a supporter of Ron Paul you want to withdraw any involvement with the Middle East and Iran, do you think that complete withdrawal will not result in bigger issues in the long run? Also, correct me if I'm wrong and this isn't an attack, I though you were a huge supporter of the English Empire and the commonwealth, do you not agree that by withdrawing American troops from Iran, withdrawing from all world conflict and taking a back roll in world affairs hugely reduces the power america holds and has the potential to remove it from being a world power?

I'm not going to pretend I know a whole lot about the middle east, because I simply don't, but there is no answer to this situation. I think war is totally the wrong answer, but there is no simple solution. I think the positive influences of aid should be considered more and more effort should be put into negotiations - although I think we might be too far down the path to go there.

[-:Undertaker:-]

+rep


Usually I don't bothered reading your threads Dan, but I think I've found some common ground here. This spans a few elements I'm fairly interested in: The completely blind way people follow the media, the way people build history around what they want to and the almost inevitable future conflict with Iran. This video is quite interesting but it's fairly one sided, although they do touch on the fact both sides are in fault towards the end. I agree that sanctions of the sort we're imposing now and are going to step up are wrong. Fundamentally I disagree with sanctioning whole countries, as it has little to no effect on the leaders, who in these situations obviously have little issue over the maltreatment of their citizens.

I don't find it one sided at all myself, the facts are that we started this.


There is a bit of a glaring hole in this video though - what about the issue of nuclear weapons and the fact that Iran has said it is not against using them? I'm totally against ANYONE having nuclear weapons, although I do realise we will never ever live again in a world where nuclear weapons do not exist. As the video touches upon in the end, I think we should help the people of Iran, but of course there is no simple answer to this. We cannot intervene in Iran - as the iranians said themselves in the occupation of the American Embassy in the 70's - and to try and oust the leader with our help would be essentially what the Americans did.

Where has Iran stated this might I ask? the remark reportedly made by the Iranian President concerning 'wiping Israel off the map' was found out to be a false report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ), cooked up and run by western media as part of the ongoing attempt to get us into war with Iran. As far as I know, the Ayatollah (and I take this with a pinch of salt also) has stated that it is unislamic to develop or use a nuclear weapon.

Even so, if the Iranians do develop a nuclear weapons they have not got the means (similar to North Korea) of delievering it to western nations nor the intent, as shown by history where Iran (or Persia) has not attacked another country for 200 years. Iran remains a peaceful country. I cannot work out this fear of a country with no nuclear weapons as of yet, when we faced off the USSR which has thousands of nuclear missiles pointing at us.

Let us say though that Iran does develop a nuclear weapons. It is entirely within its rights as a sovereign state to do so, just as India and Pakistan (both sworn enemies) have done so and just as Israel has done so yet denies having done so. With a nuclear weapon, Iraq wouldn't have attacked Iran in the 1980s war of aggression due to the threat of WMD.


The seemingly straightforward answer would be to completely withdraw all foreign troops from the middle east - but this is inevitably going to result in huge problems, and fighting between the countries (as the video states, Iran and Iraq were keen to fight in the past).

But they were only able to fight (and the regimes in question only came into being) purely down to American meddling. Within American influence, the likelyhood is that Iran would have had a non-radical government and Iraq would have also had a non-radical government. Not only this, but Iran and Iraq wouldn't have had the means to fight eachother because who was it who was supplying the cash and arms to both nations over the period? the United States.


Also, who's to say Iran wont spend the next 20 years building their army, expanding, getting stronger until it gets to the point that the whole of NATO has to get involved and we end up with ahumongouslylarger problem than we have now?

Iran is going to do that regardless if we continue to threaten it constantly. If we do pull out and set by example rather than by gun, then the chances are that the Iranian Islamic regime would collapse soon after because like all regimes it relies on the element of 'support us [your country] against the enemy'.

Even if Iran were to have the same regime and a larger armed forces in twenty or so years, whats the issue?


I guess as a supporter of Ron Paul you want to withdraw any involvement with the Middle East and Iran, do you think that complete withdrawal will not result in bigger issues in the long run?

Not at all, most of the issues (including 9/11 itself) stem from American meddling in the region. If you look at Switzerland which largely minds its own business, is Switzerland constantly being attacked by terrorists? is Switzerland the sworn enemy of most of these regimes? does Switzerland provide the financial aid and military aid that the United States does which keeps many of these regimes in place?


Also, correct me if I'm wrong and this isn't an attack, I though you were a huge supporter of the English Empire and the commonwealth, do you not agree that by withdrawing American troops from Iran, withdrawing from all world conflict and taking a back roll in world affairs hugely reduces the power america holds and has the potential to remove it from being a world power?

Oh no not at all, attacks are perfectly fine in debates because you'd be right to point other stances out which might conflict with what i'm saying. But anywho good question; how can I justify the British Empire but decry the American 'Empire'? - well for a number of reasons the first being that the age is different because Imperialism is dead. As much as I admire the British Empire I accept one hundred percent that it has gone and that it oughtn't to return. Another reason is that with the British Empire, it achieved an awful lot which America just hasn't in its 'colonies'. Whereas the Americans simply build oil pipelines, the odd motorway and supply weapons - the British Empire built nations as it would build its own nation. The difference is that America is more of a military Empire, whereas the British Empire was more of an economical (and thus beneficial) one.

The final reason is why Imperialism as a concept doesn't work anymore - the rise of patriotism in the new nation states of the world. When the British first arrived, many of these nations didn't exist and thus didn't have a concept of national identity such as a Ugandan, an Egyptian or an Iraqi - they do now. Because of this, running an Empire in the modern world is almost impossible because it would involve constant uprisings which can result in 'blowback' as has happened with America and the western world. The British Empire never really had blowback because it didn't exist in a period where planes can be hijacked and people are much more educated and patriotic of their nation state.

I realise i've gone on for a bit on this but its a complex issue, but as for the United States - it faces the same end as the British Empire did; bankruptcy because of overstretched resources. The British Empire ended with debt because of World War I and World War II and the American 'Empire' (with an added welfare state to pay for which the British Empire never had) will end the same way with these constant wars.


I'm not going to pretend I know a whole lot about the middle east, because I simply don't, but there is no answer to this situation. I think war is totally the wrong answer, but there is no simple solution. I think the positive influences of aid should be considered more and more effort should be put into negotiations - although I think we might be too far down the path to go there.

I would say the solution is as Ron Paul states - trade freely with all nations, close military bases around the world and talk with everybody. A great deal of these regimes remember rely on the American bogey to support themselves, once that crumbles - they will crumble. Do remember, it was not Iraq which declared war on us, we declared war on Iraq.

[FiftyCal]

I'll have to take a look at this video, hopefully it will be worth the 10 minutes.

[Grig]

I beg to differ, Iran is not a "crisis". I disagree with anyone who believes to use the word crisis on Iran...it's far from a crisis and far from developing the capabilities for it to be termed as a crisis.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I beg to differ, Iran is not a "crisis". I disagree with anyone who believes to use the word crisis on Iran...it's far from a crisis and far from developing the capabilities for it to be termed as a crisis.

I think we are on the verge of war thats why I term it as a crisis, its like poking a wasps nest with a stick - soon they'll have no choice but to hit out. The sanctions are being upped such as shutting off the Central Bank of Iran along with an oil embargo which the weak Iranian economy depends upon, military threats are being made weekly and Israel is going to make a choice soon on whether to take out Iranian nuclear sites.

The war propaganda is being upped just as it was with Iraq.

[Grig]

I think we are on the verge of war thats why I term it as a crisis, its like poking a wasps nest with a stick - soon they'll have no choice but to hit out. The sanctions are being upped such as shutting off the Central Bank of Iran along with an oil embargo which the weak Iranian economy depends upon, military threats are being made weekly and Israel is going to make a choice soon on whether to take out Iranian nuclear sites.

The war propaganda is being upped just as it was with Iraq.

Depending on who you listen to. If we go into Iran, then the war hawks can say goodbye to support, seeing as the American people are fed up. The country is already bust, yet looking for more worldwide policing, toppling dictators and regimes when they please. If Israel does that, it could escalate things with Palestine again as well.

If Obama goes to war now, then I would predict a negative impact. This isn't going to be another stroll in the park like Libya, we are talking about full scale here. So far though it's more of a classic Cold War rhetoric type of thing.

[GommeInc]

It's only a crisis because America is making it one. They love one self-incuded after another, it's what they do. No doubt the rest of the world will have to get involved beyond the usual trade embargos, closing down of borders etc. etc.