What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
39 Comments
- colonelcupcake, on 10/27/2009, -3/+17Because they're a sovereign nation and can do whatever they want?
- FreakyT, on 10/27/2009, -2/+16I suspect that the article is right; Iran is still characterized by conflicts between moderates who actually have some idea what they're doing, and the hardline conservative idiots who are completely out of touch. Actually, that sounds a lot like us here in the US.
- Dregganaut, on 10/27/2009, -2/+10Hey remember when the CIA gave nuclear weapon plans to Iran?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Merlin
Yeah, neither do I. - whatthefu, on 10/27/2009, -1/+8They also overthrew a democratically elected leader in the 1950s because he wasn't cooperative like the shah was. Doesn't really help our cause.
- sgerwel1985, on 10/27/2009, -0/+7Because they can do with it as they please, as long as it is not being used to trigger a war and or attack others. As long as they TRULY use it for energy, there is no issue (relatively).
- enantiodromia, on 10/27/2009, -1/+8Because that's what they always do?
/4 diggs and zero comments, and on the front page? - shig, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6Sovereign Nazi Germany could do whatever they wanted, but they destroyed the sovereignty of other countries through a series of military invasions. Destroying or infringing another country's sovereignty voids your own, like infringing on another person's liberty voids your own liberty.
How is the nuclear program of Iran comparable to the military invasions and genocide carried out by Nazi Germany? I'm drawing completely ***** blank, and I'm interested in how you'd twist it. - eavesdrop, on 10/27/2009, -0/+5Didnt the US tell the UN to ***** off plenty of times? I agree that the UN is pathetic but its insanely hypocritical to see demopublicans get upset over Iran stalling. We as the United States should either enforce and abide by all rules, or secede from it. Simple as ***** that.
- DrHoliday, on 10/27/2009, -1/+5skipping straight to the Nazi analogies already, wow.
- inactive, on 10/27/2009, -2/+6Then why don't they tell the UN to ***** off, oh right because they are playing games to get money in exchange for cooperation
- Barackalypse, on 10/27/2009, -0/+4Or the delay is part of a strategy by the regime to buy time and stall any military action until it has a weapon developed, at which point it will be too costly to act.
- inactive, on 10/27/2009, -0/+4@MWeather
It wasn't the US's business, it was actually the British, but they asked for our help and as our special ally we gave it to them. Besides it was the Cold War, there were legitimate fears Mossadegh would turn Iran over to the Soviet camp. Is it shady, probably but those were shady times in history.
And seriously, read more about Mossadegh than what your professors told you, he wasn't much better than the Shah, he dissolved the Iranian parliament in a rigged vote, blackmailed the Shah into making him prime minister, he wasn't actually elected he was chosen by his party whose allies had months earlier tried to assassinate the Shah and APPOINTED by Pahlavi himself, yet people make it out to be like the Shah just magically was installed as leader of Iran out of nowhere, he was born into Royalty and him and Mossadegh frequently clashed politically months and years before Ajax.
It was two power hungry son of a bitches going up against one another and Mossadegh was on the losing end of the stick, end of story.
And like I said again, he ***** with Pahlavi's family, he made it personal. - colonelcupcake, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Ron Paul's a pretty popular fellow on here. Maybe he can persuade you?
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-06-19/ron-paul-the-onl ... - EndAntiSemitism, on 10/27/2009, -1/+4None of those countries received nukes from the US; not even close. At best Pakistan and Israel developed the technology on their own with hardware assistance from Europe, and India with some from Canada, I believe.
- DrHoliday, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Why would Iran having nukes start 'World War III'? Nothing of a similar scenario exists at all to recreate conditions necessary for mass, global conflict. Where are the entangling alliances that would draw everyone into war?
Second, there's no indication that Iran throws MAD out of the window. Never has Iran showed itself willing to sacrifice itself for this image of religious fanaticism people credit it with. Iranian foreign policy is hardly religious, and is based on some extremely pragmatic, self-serving ideals.
"Iran truly isn't planning on developing a nuclear weapons program / someone responds with air strike = very small number of casualties, set back of their energy program"
That logic was used for the invasion of Iraq. 'In and out', quick surgical strikes. You not only risk starting a conflict that would give Iran the moral high ground, but also potentially devastate the world economy when Iran blocks the straight of Hormuz.
"Iran claims they're not going to develop nukes, but really are / the world does nothing = potentially use them on Israel or even the US, potentially millions dead and devastating nuclear war"
The only legitimate threat to to bomb a country comes from Israel, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand the political structure in Iran.
I have no illusions that you'll actually respond and thoughtfully try to understand my reasoning. Your history, avatar, and cute attempt at masking blatant anti-Iranian rhetoric with "EndAntiSemitism" as a username makes that blatantly clear. - inactive, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Mossadegh asked for it, he exiled the Shah's sister to Paris and tried to oust Pahlavi first and declare himself president illegally. But you never get that side of the story in the university establishment.
- Shabow, on 10/27/2009, -4/+6Why is it our business?
- IKORKYI, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2it works for north korea
give a mouse a cookie... - Dregganaut, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Should we trust the USA this time?
- quaxon, on 10/27/2009, -3/+5How many muslims has the US army killed? Now how many westerners has the Iranian government/military killed (i'll give you a hint, it's pretty much ZERO). As far are comparisons to Hitler and the holocaust go, i think we are the Nazi's on this one.
- whatthefu, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Pahlavi was despised across the whole country. I don't care if Mossadeq "***** with his family." Pahlavi's reign and the US support behind it is the direct cause of our problems with Iran today. Their terrible regime wouldn't even be in power if Pahlavi hadn't brought about such discontent.
- inactive, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Dregganaut, you explained why WE aided the coup, but you have to look into what went on in the mind of Pahlavi as well. He was initially reluctant about the coup because he knew Mossadegh's popularity and feared him, but like I mentioned there was bad blood between the two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Ashraf_Pahla ...
"By her own account she was of limited financial means when Mossadegh sent her into exile in Paris "
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Mohammed:Mossadegh ...
"Sensing the difficulties of a worsening political and economic climate, he announced that he would request the Shah grant him emergency powers. Thus, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mossadegh asked the Shah to grant him full control of the military, and Ministry of War. The Shah refused, and Mossadegh announced his resignation. "
Obviously the Shah was suspicious of the guy to begin with, Mossadegh was prime minister yet kept demanding more and more control and power. Isn't this how Bush took control after 9/11, instead Mossadegh used shadowy threats of British MI6 agents and oil as pretext to try and take control himself.
Also for as much as people bait the 1953 events to justify the Islamic revolution, need it be reminded the current regime actually distorts history and not only downplays Mossadegh's role but actually re-imagines it as a rebellion by the Ayatollah against the secular infidel Shah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%2 ...
"In the Islamic Republic, remembrance of the coup is quite different than that of history books published in the West, and follows the precepts of Ayatollah Khomeini that Islamic jurists must guide the country to prevent "the influence of foreign powers".[62] According to historian Ervand Abrahamian, the government tries to ignore Mosaddeq as much as possible and allocates him only two pages in "high school textbooks." "The mass media elevate Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani as the real leader of the oil nationalization campaign, depicting Mosaddeq as merely the ayatollah's hanger-on." "
If they are going to use foreign CIA meddling as an excuse for their tyrannical Islamic regime at least be honest about the history.
Also I find it ironic how the people who whine about Pahlavi are the same ilk who support Caesar Chavez in Venezuela holding onto power for almost a decade with no plans to give up power anytime soon. Like it or not Pahlavi DID modernize Iran and actually supported land reform and women's rights in the countryside which actually angered the clergy and prompted a young Ayatollah Khomeini to get into politics in the first place. - Dregganaut, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3solid12345, your account of the coup is a bit revisionist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%2 ...
"Mosaddeq, backed by his nationalist supporters in the Iranian parliament and throughout Iran, had angered Britain with his argument that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves instead of allowing profits to continue to flow to Britain. In 1951, Iran's Parliament, the Majlis, nationalized Iran's oil industry and then elected Mosaddeq to be prime minster."
That was his real "crime".
Do you have similar justifications for say, Pinochet? - vault, on 10/27/2009, -1/+3Foreign relations aren't based on ethics or who has the 'moral highground,' just like diplomacy is not based on who makes the most compelling arguments, as if it were a debate.
- SamurAchzar, on 10/27/2009, -8/+9I wonder how the same logic would apply to the dealings of the Allies with Nazi Hermany.
Not too many liberals to yell "they're entitled to do as they ***** please" back then, eh.
Not only is stopping this program justified, it's also a moral obligation of any western leader to his people. Why have a 2nd North Korea? Does it make the world safer? More prosperous? Does it even help the Iranian people themselves? - MWeather, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2"Mossadegh asked for it, he exiled the Shah's sister to Paris and tried to oust Pahlavi first and declare himself president illegally."
And that's the US's business how exactly? - Dregganaut, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2"instead Mossadegh used shadowy threats of British MI6 agents and oil as pretext to try and take control himself."
Right, because that isn't what happened at all!?
"Also for as much as people bait the 1953 events to justify the Islamic revolution, need it be reminded the current regime actually distorts history and not only downplays Mossadegh's role but actually re-imagines it as a rebellion by the Ayatollah against the secular infidel Shah."
Do you deny that the reasons behind the Islamic revolution stem from the 1953 coup? - Dregganaut, on 10/27/2009, -1/+2I will grant you that the Shah did somewhat "modernize" the country, but lets not forget all that brutal suppression of dissidents, and the creation of a one-party state.
- inactive, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1"Do you deny that the reasons behind the Islamic revolution stem from the 1953 coup?"
The reasons behind the INITIAL revolution was related to the coup, originally the protests against the Shah were by communists and university students. But Khomeini hijacked the revolution and literally did a coup against the revolutionaries and threw them in jail. And Khomeini got into politics because he was angry with the Shah's White Revolution and secularization of Iran, not the 1953 coup. - ChloeMS, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1So is Israel having nukes!
- tgc1, on 10/27/2009, -1/+1Propaganda Ball says: "Better not tell you now..."
- Dregganaut, on 10/27/2009, -1/+1oh wow, an apologist for the Shah.
- althanis, on 10/27/2009, -2/+1Mahmoud accidentally all the un-enriched uranium.
- tgc1, on 10/27/2009, -2/+1moral obligation -- That's where I stop reading.
- EndAntiSemitism, on 10/27/2009, -7/+5I've said it many times before and been dugg down, but I don't care:
No, they can't do whatever they want. It is in the best interest of the entire world that a country run by religious fundamentalists (which throws mutually assured destruction out the window) does NOT acquire nuclear weapons. Pre 1945 I would have agreed with you, but when one country, potentially a handful of people or less, have the power to start an event that will trigger events leading to potentially the end of the world, the situation changes.
I don't care the BS that the ayatollahs feed about a "energy" program. They have shown before they have no problem lying and deceiving when it comes to elections, executing protesters, and their positions on free speech and homosexuals (aka we will have none and we have non).
From a game theory prospective:
A) Iran truly isn't planning on developing a nuclear weapons program / the world does nothing = No harm
B) Iran truly isn't planning on developing a nuclear weapons program / someone responds with air strike = very small number of casualties, set back of their energy program
C) Iran claims they're not going to develop nukes, but really are / someone responds with air strike = potentially millions of lives saved and WWIII possibly averted
D) Iran claims they're not going to develop nukes, but really are / the world does nothing = potentially use them on Israel or even the US, potentially millions dead and devastating nuclear war
I don't care how it sounds - i'll take options C or B anytime over risking D. - austroLogi, on 10/27/2009, -6/+4yeah... u know.. like nuke israel
- suavek2000, on 10/27/2009, -6/+1USA thinks they are landlord of the whole miserable planet and can tell anybody what to do.
They gave nukes to Pakistan,India,Israel
They armed so many our enemies just to destroy them later . - DISEX, on 10/27/2009, -9/+3Well besides having nukes. Iran with Nukes is dangerous.
- quaxon, on 10/27/2009, -9/+3We kill more people around the globe (currently Muslims, though not long ago it was Asians, South Americans, etc.) every year than Iran has in the past thousand. All you idiots who are pointing fingers and yelling that they can't be trusted need to look in a ***** mirror. It's the US that cannot be trusted. Just because we have the biggest guns and the money to hide all the murders from the majority of the population doesn't make it ethical nor does it give us the moral high ground to go around telling other countries what they can and cannot do.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is