This wasn’t a discussion about the US it was a discussion about the US in relation to the Arab world in which you once again smeared Iran, why is the Shah an “unnecessary detail” in such a discussion other than because it reflects reality rather than fitting neatly into your fantasy world?
Not “about,” you moron; “involving.” Any time we have a discussion
involving the United States, you begin by whining about how it’s entirely Washington’s doing because the government are actually Nazis in disguise, and then proceed to ignore the matter of how to
fix what went wrong. A rebel without a cause, if you will.
Secondly, I find it interesting that one could unfairly “smear” Iran while discussing the problem of terrorism in the Middle East given the fact that they are a known safe-haven for al-Qaeda members and have conducted espionage aimed at he United States. Of course, in your book, we should simply ignore this because Iran is little more than a sick, innocent victim at heart, hm?
Third, because I already touched on Arab emasculation, it is unnecessary to list specific grievances one at a time, no matter how much you’d prefer we made a list of all the dirty deeds you want aired.
Oh I see the problem is entirely with those who constantly misinterpret your great words of wisdom is it? And you say it’s Mike who’s “building his own little version of reality”
To put it simply? Yes.
Bullshit you tried to paint a picture of US involvement in the Arab world whilst leaving out any mention of American Imperialism.
Why the fuck else do you think I touched on
emasculation and actualization of Arab power, you ass-clown? Just because I don’t point the finger and try to make Nazis out of American politicians doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge that we’re reaping, in part, what we’ve sown.
You only admit this now because I gave you no option by pointing out the complete lack of such “unnecessary details” in your initial post.
No, you blithering idiot, I’m talking about it because you’re trying to play the blame-game rather than offer any cogent re-imagining of constructive policy.
So in your mind an isolationist foreign policy is one that includes “occasional military intervention”?
No American politician is going to bring us back to the ‘30s, regardless of his opinions about how minimal a role the United States should play in the world. Even were we to pursue Wong’s simple-minded, one-dimensional tack (which, by the way, is still more substantial a proposition than anything you’ve offered thus far), the United States would still be compelled to organize intervention in situations such as the invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1991.
This has to be one of the most convoluted and least convincing justifications for continued aggressive imperialism in the Arab world I’ve ever heard. You admit that past interventions have been “self-serving – and ultimately universally detrimental” but then argue that you should continue to follow the same policies anyway. Why? Because of the vague ill supported assertion that the US would be the target of terrorism anyway because of it’s “hyperpower”. Do you really believe that shit? Do you really think that if the US hadn’t practically gone out of it’s way over the years to piss of Muslim’s that so many of them would hate America? The mind truly boggles.
The United States hasn’t exactly gone out of its way to piss off Indonesia over the years, but plenty of Indonesians are willing to kill Americans, Plekhanov. The same is true of Pakistanis, with whom we cultivated a strong Cold War relationship.
That is the elephant effect. It means that even without having installed people like the Shah in Iran or having sent troops to Beirut during the 1980s, there would still be organizations throughout the world dedicated to the violent rejection of all things Western.
Even an isolationist would be forced to keep a wary eye on the Middle East. All these proposals about “alternative fuel sources” and hydrogen-powered cars aren’t going to pan out without
decades of work – and even then, a realistic switch would be gradual in the extreme (immediate restructuring of the global economy being virtually impossible). That means that even without a Cold War, we’d still have sent people into Kuwait to restore the sovereignty of an oil-producing nation. That we’d still have sent troops to Saudi Arabia to preempt another attack on an even more important source of oil. And so on and so on and so forth.
How do you know so much about my general opinions on all aspects of US foreign policy so that you feel qualified to make such a sweeping statement about my beliefs? Is it the same voice in your head that tells you about all the WMD in Iraq?
Because I see what I read, you fucking moron. And if it comes out of your mouth, it might as well have been written in
Pravda in 1952.
You aren’t arguing that, I haven’t argued that, so why exactly did you bring it up?
Wong argued that.
So the imposition of a brutal dictator upon the people of Iran was an “experiment” was it? What a charming way you have with words, do tell me Kast what were the results? Did you get much useful data? I’m sure the families of all those tortured and murdered by the Savak would love to know.
Newsflash Kast Iranians aren’t laboratory mice they are people, their lives are just as valuable as anybody else’s and that includes US citizens.
The results of what we did have no bearing on the original plan, fucktard. Iran
was an experiment; we installed our own strong man using the CIA and attempted to coordinate his rise to power, whereby he’d become the first “American” proxy in the Middle East and attempt to effect a secular revolution.
So the US has been winning hearts and minds in Iraq through it’s “restraint and forgiveness” gotcha
You still didn’t answer my question though, just what is so unique about the current adventure in Iraq, how does it fundamentally differ form all the other times the USA (or Britain or any other imperial power) has imposed a more compliant government on a country?
This is precisely what I’m talking about when I say that you’re so rabid about America’s faults, you don’t actually address the issues at hand, but instead go off on a tangent. The United States hasn’t gone door-to-door shooting people up like the Baathists, Plekhanov.
As for your question, I have indeed answered it. Iraq isn’t like Iran; we’ve installed a coalition, not a monarch. Iraq isn’t like Lebannon; we sent politicians as well as soldiers. Iraq isn’t like Saudi Arabia; we aren’t negotiating with the old regime. Iraq isn’t like Somalia; we didn’t hunt small fish while ignoring the main problem of how to simultaneously develop a functioning government.
A revealing mistake though, which shows you are so used to spouting anti-Iranian bullshit that even when forced to admit that they are reforming the next moment you snap right back into spewing neo-con propaganda.
Iran’s reform movement has now been barred from effecting legal change. It is far from mustering sufficient support to overthrow a government. It is far from wielding sufficient power to turn Tehran away from backing al-Qaeda, conducting intelligence operations against the United States, and pursuing an atomic energy program outside the bounds of its international commitments. These are immediate problems – immediate threats –, and unfortunately, we don’t have time to sit and hope for a miracle. Plenty of groups opposed Saddam Hussein, too, and they weren’t exactly going anywhere fast, if you catch my drift.
Which of your bullshit points still stands? The one about “Iran is reforming” but we can still invade it “with absolute legitimacy on all of the charges we laid at Saddam Hussein’s feet” . Or your second contradictory point that “there aren’t any progressive reform movements – nor any nascent reform movements" in Iran?
As for the reforms not going anywhere I thought you studied history, have you any idea of how long such movements generally take? Don’t you realise that progress in such matters isn’t steady and smooth but often stalls? Iran has come a long way since 1979 and much further than most people would have expected, despite continual attempts by the US to undermine one of the few self-determining nations in the region.
That’s
exactly right. These programs take a
long time. And considering the potential fallout of new terrorist attacks like the one on September 11, 2001, that’s
an unacceptable risk.
Flawless logic. Middle Easterners resent the US for meddling in their countries. Kast's solution? MORE MEDDLING!
And what’s your plan, if I may ask? Another fatally flawed “keep your hands to yourselves” spin on foreign policy?
) that Islam can not be attacked in the same fashion that Titus used against the Jews. i.e. nuking Mecca or having the 24th ID cart the Kabaah back to DC after razing the city. 
It isn’t as if the reforms in Iran are going anywhere anyway. My point still stands. Especially in their case.
