= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Open Thread, Jul. 13 - Jul. 19, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (297)
Iranians chant "death to America" because of America's past abuses, such as overthrowing the democratic government of Mohammad Mosaddegh to install the dictatorship of the Shah of Iran and supporting Saddam Hussein's bloody war of aggression against Iran (hundreds of thousands of Iranians died.) This included direct support for Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs. It's ridiculous to frame this as Iranian "mad dogs" vs. innocent Americans. They have every reason to fear foreign aggression. For example, this and this.
Attacking Iran again would simply be continuing the pattern of violent aggression the US has established in the Middle East for decades.
I didn't mean to frame this as " Iranian "mad dogs" vs. innocent Americans." Rather, for reasons another nation hates my nation, and my nation seems willing to let this other nation acquire atomic weapons.
I remember some U.S. general (I think) saying that the great tragedy of the Iran/Iraq war was that someday it will end.
This is a bit of a suspicious summary to me, because it sounds exactly like the summary from the angle of a highly educated, perhaps pol sci grad left-leaning highly critical American. Is it really likely that average guy in Iran really has the same perspective? Or their leaders? You simply don't seem to be making any effort to simulate their minds.
To give you one example of the lack of simulation here: too long memory. Mossadegh, really? 1953? That is what some guy born in 1970 or 80 will riot about? You have to be half a historian and full of a high-brown person to care what happened in 1953. For comparison, for most people who shot Kennedy and why is ancient history and that was 10 years later, in a country with far better collective memory than Iran (more books published, more media made etc.) If it turns out today the Russkies did it somehow, how many Americans will get angry? My prediction: not many.
That's an awesome typo :-D
I'm actually more of a conservative than liberal but I think anyone acquainted with the facts and making a good-faith effort not to see Iranians as Evil Mutants should come to the same conclusions. The US media essentially never mentions these facts and even when they do they treat each as an isolated incident rather than part of a consistent pattern which explains the attitude many Iranians have toward the US. I learned these things from being active in the US antiwar movement for the last 10 years or so.
First of all they aren't rioting; they're protesting. It would be one thing if the US had acknowledged the wrongness of this action and apologized for it. To the best of my knowledge this has never happened. And don't forget that the Shah was imposed by the US and reigned until 1979! That isn't exactly ancient history. There are many people presently alive who fully remember the Iran-Iraq war and the Shah's dictatorship.
That's very different. The government wasn't replaced when JFK died; his vice president (who largely continued his policies) was made president. Very little changed for most Americans. Furthermore the Soviet Union no longer exists, whereas the US government continues to behave in a very similar, heavy handed way in the Middle East as it did in the 1950s. The difference is instead of dictatorships, the US tends to create anarchy and long-term civil war.
Here is a counter-example for you. I am well acquained with the facts and I do not see Iranians as Evil Mutants (well, not any more than I see Americans as such :-P). I do not come to the same conclusions as you, obviously.
What conclusions have you arrived at? Do you think some statements mentioned are incorrect or do you think that something else (e.g. role of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi himself and other people within Iran itself, or ideology of Iranian Revolution and role of people like Ali Shariati, or role of contemporary events in neighbouring countries or something else entirely) should be more emphasized?
What exactly is the question here?
In the comments above I was mostly pushing against the leftist view of geopolitics which sets up the US as Evil Mutants intent on oppressing the rest of the world (in the Middle East together with their lapdog / puppet Israel), while anyone opposed to the US is a victim with legitimate grievances and if they have the "Death to America" attitude it is justified.
There is a difference between one-off events and events that fall into a certain pattern and narrative. The latter are often remembered as being an example of events that fall into that narrative. In my impression Kennedy's assassination, despite all conspiracy theories surrounding it, is rarely thought of as being a part of a bigger narrative.
More media doesn't mean better collective memory. Iranian children are taught their history in school.
Western culture focuses more on the short term, than more traditional cultures do.
A nation's memory is limited, and too many things have happened in the U.S. since Kennedy's death. Bolivia is still sore from losing its coast to Chile in 1884, because not much has happened to Bolivians afterwards.
Are you really arguing that not that much happened in Iran since 1953??
Much indeed, but instead of being varied and fleeting, the events that followed were directly related to 1953 and served to reinforce that memory. The fact that the U.S. has steadily kept ruining the lives of Iran's neighbors doesn't help, either.
So, the Islamic Revolution was directly related to 1953? As was the Iraq-Iran war?
Let's look at Iran's neighbors. There's Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, which all are doing just fine. There's Turkey, which is just fine as well. There are some former Russian republics which are a mess, but for that you have to talk to Mr.Putin. There is Afghanistan which has been a mess since the Russian invasion (or, arguably, since the British Empire's Great Game) and while the US has certainly been involved, I don't think you can blame it for Afghanistan being what it is. There's Pakistan which is not the best of countries but is still managing to muddle through and even acquire nuclear weapons in the process.
So I guess all you mean is Iraq. Same Iraq which you agreed was supported by the US in "the bloody war of aggression against Iran"? But yes, you have a valid point in that the Second Iraq war was started on the pretext of preventing Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. Iran certainly took notice and, I suspect, came to the conclusion that a deterrent against a conventional US invasion would be a very useful thing to have.
I think you just undermined your own argument that Iran doesn't want nukes :-)
Yes, the whole point of the revolution was to remove the U.S.-appointed monarch and reverse the pro-Western trend he had started. And then Iraq invaded Iran because it was afraid the revolution would spread.
Just one year after the revolution, Jimmy Carter proclaimed that the Persian Gulf was the U.S.'s personal playground, and no one (else) was allowed to mess with it. Bush I and Bush II acted accordingly. Even the continued goodwill toward Saudi Arabia is a cause of worry for Iran, as they're sectarian rivals. And then there's Israel, which is viewed as a representative of U.S. interests against Muslim populations.
The Second Iraq war was started on the pretext that Iraq already had WMDs. For Iran, having them isn't going to stop a U.S. invasion.
Sigh. OK, we live in different universes. I wish you luck in yours.
He needs less luck than you since his contains the President of the United States and most of academia.
I don't quite see how that implies he needs less luck. If anything, I think he's more screwed X-)
You really are in your own delusional universe if you think the revolution had nothing to do with removing the foreign-imposed dictator.
Why, thank you for such a devastatingly convincing argument. However I wasn't trying to discuss Iran with you -- that seems to be pretty useless-- I was just pointing out that your assertion that "anyone acquainted with the facts... should come to the same conclusion" is false.
In fact, such an assertion is very common for people who are not capable of imagining how anyone could possibly hold a different view. On LW such people are called mind-killed.
That the revolution was to remove the American influence seems to me much weaker, and thus easier to prove, than the claim that it was directly related to 1953.
Both all of your statements and those of James_Miller can be true without contradicting each other.
Regardless of how modern Iran came to be or who is to blame, you seem to agree that the Iranian public is quite hostile to the U.S.
I don't worry about this too much, because I assume that the CIA/DOD/whoever have determined that we can live with a nuke powered Iran, even if they hate us.
Downvoted for mindlessly regurgitating a pile of propaganda onto LW.
Upvoted for happening to be true.
LOL. I'm not going to play "burn out the heresy with my karma flamethrower", but you might want to step back from the tribal fight and think about what "true" actually means in this context.
Note: that downvote is not mine.
And letting Iran have nukes would lead to the Middle East becoming a peaceful place.