UK Outraged At British Embassy Employee's Trial

Discussion in 'News And Current Events' started by Visionary, Aug 8, 2009.

  1. Visionary Member

    Britain calls Iran trial of employee an outrage | Top News | Reuters

    Let's see, right now they're trying someone from Britain and someone from France.
    What country will they piss off next?
  2. jadt65 Member

    Well, they have the hikers from the US. The regime seems like it is trying to provoke Western intervention....turning their paranoia about the west interfering into a self-fulfilling prophecy.:confused:
  3. Registered Member

    I hope the EU takes collective diplomatic action as they did when members of the UK embassy staff were first arrested. I read somewhere an excellent suggestion that the EU members should downgrade their embassies in Iran to consuls as a form of political sanction.
  4. They expected the Iranian government to be educated and wise enough to play a "double game": Doing what they want to do at home, but keep to the rules of diplomacy when over the border. That's something even the mighty Soviet Union and China kept doing. Now, if these superpowers (not famed for their respect for human rights) were careful enough to keep themselves to the unwritten rules of diplomacy, a small-sized country of limited influence even in its own region is automatically assumed to respect these rules.

    But Iran's leadership has shown that its policy does not reflect the respect for the rules of diplomacy. On the contrary, what they have done rather puts them on the same line as some real terrorist organisations do (Hizbollah, Hamas, Qaeda, Taliban, etc.). It is true that tha whole invasion of Afghanistan would have been avoidable, if the Taliban respected the rules of diplomatic games. They did not, and most of them payed with their lives for their ignorance, including their peoples' lives. Iran has also clearly demonstrated its ignorance in the past few days, as it did not treat foreign hostages according to the way it was "expected" by their home countries. This is a play with the fire, as open insults on the field of diplomacy are not forgiven or forgotten easily. And it's never a wise idea to create so many enemies - especially if they are more powerful than you.

    Now go around and ask yourself: What future do you predict of a state whose leaders aren't wise enough to keep civilized on the international scenes and to distinguish themselves from petty terrorists? Dou you expect Iran to be taken as a "state with responsibility" when it comes to talks on the nuclear issues? If they couldn't respect the rules of diplomacy in the case of single citizens, why would they keep to any agreements on "peaceful use of nuclear energy"? And would they stick to international treaties regarding the disarming of militias in Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course, they won't !

    What they spread is an "islamized" version of the original communist vision of "world revolution". But even the Soviet Union was wise enough not to disrupt international contacts because of this ideology. Iran isn't wise enough. That's why the rest of the world marks them as "fanatics without insight". And that makes Iran dangerous in the eyes of the West.
  5. Dro Member


    Thanks for a convincing analysis. I agree the regime's behavior shows an frightening degree of recklessness.

    I have an alternative explanation for their behavior, though. Unlike the Soviet Union or China, who were trying to keep the Cold War at a manageable level, I think that Iran (the regime, not the people) is actually deliberately trying to pick a fight with the West.

    It is not at all irrational, in fact it is the most common tactic of all by despots and tyrants throughout the ages: "Yes, freedom would be nice, but we have so many enemies right now that cannot afford it." A war, or a least a lot of saber-rattling stopping short of outright war has several advantages:

    1. It will get people to rally around the flag and marginalize the Sea of Green.

    2. It give the regime a justification for a very harsh crackdown against the opposition.

    3. It will keep the Army busy, removing the only credible threat of a military coup against the regime.

    So as far as AN and Kh are concerned, mobilization for war is a win-win-win situation, as long as they will not have to face the West directly in a full on, all out shooting war. But there are several steps before that happens, and I bet they are willing to gamble on being able to stop short of that.

    One potential target could be the UAE. As Visionary pointed out in a different thread, the UAE was mentioned a lot in today's installment of the "trial" against the opposition. I think that makes sense. UAE is a small country, close to Iran. It could not conceivably threaten Iran militarily, and as long as Iran does not start an invasion, the West would probably not commit troops to any armed conflict between them and Iran, and would probably just provide indirect support.
  6. Thank you so much, Ariss, for your thoughtful insight into this.

    I have been thinking further that the Soviet Union and China are comparable to Iran at one level, yet not comparable to Iran at another -- important -- level.

    Certainly there seems to be a divide in the power cartel within Iran: those who pay lip service to religious ideology yet whose real loyalties lie with money and power; and those for whom religious ideology is everything.

    I suspect that the money/power people can still be brought to some semblance of dialogue, negotiation, and agreement by means of guarantees of more money and power -- or at the very least, a means of safeguarding the money and power already in place. In this respect, the money/power people in Iran are comparable to the money/power people in Russia and China.

    But there are the religious ideologues to be reckoned with. I suspect that they cannot be reckoned with. And therefore they are not comparable with the money/power people in Russia and China.

    It is not simply Islam that we are trying to plumb here. Please don't get me wrong here. And forgive me if I use the wrong words; help me to find a useful communication.

    It is a particular thread of what some folks have taken to be Islam -- a kind of 'special' mysticism, if you will -- that proves difficult for many in the West to understand: the quest for perfection; the desire to become the perfect human being. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini liked these ideas. (And seemed to want to make sure other people liked these ideas as well.)

    This kind of mysticism proposed that everyone is the same. Something not yet demonstrated.

    Not yet demonstrated because, at the same time, 'seekers' are at different stages of the journey toward and with and from God.

    If seekers are at different stages of the journey, then surely they are not the same. Surely they have different perceptions, understandings, goals.

    What this means, I think, is that some (perhaps most) people buy into the idea that everyone is the same. While some (perhaps a self-selected few) promote a 'specialness' a critical difference between themselves and the dusty masses.

    (Please forgive my use of the word 'dusty'. I do not mean to demean; only to illuminate a view of the 'other' among the regime that seems really strange -- and suspect -- to me. Dusty is a regime word.)

    So what this seems to boil down to is that 'everyone' has the privilege of paying with blood. While 'a few special exceptions to everyone' have the privilege of saying whatever they want, doing whatever they want, and paying whatever they want. Those exceptions claim the right to money and power and to anything else they need in order to enlarge the influence of their own personal religious ideology in the world.

    What they need 'cannot' and 'must not' be negotiated. What they need can and must be taken. If there is a price, then that price can and must be paid by means of the blood of the 'other.'

    :) I agree.

    :) It looks that way to me.

    Really, it's anyone's guess. If the religious ideologues are right, then rules of engagement don't figure very largely. The thing about being right, is that right usually means logical and evidence-based. Right usually means not self-contradictory. And that is not happening among the religious ideologues. Is it? Or did I miss it? The argument for the 'right' of the special few over the dusty many is very self-contradictory.

    Some random thoughts on perfection:

    1) Humans are by nature imperfect. Am I wrong? Perfection is the domain of God. If humans could become perfect, then do they not trangress on the domain of God? Is it not idolatry to buy into the polemic that some special few humans can be perfect?

    2) Is perfection not the enemy of the good? Is this not what we are seeing here? Some 'new' revolutionary form of hubris resulting in the same old same old privileged few feeding off the unfortunate many?

    3) Is the tree not known by its fruit? How can the perfect tree bear imperfect fruit? Look at the fruit of the regime's tree!

    4) If we are human, then we are imperfect, and our knowledge is imperfect, and it is wisdom in its purest form to foresake hubris, embrace humility, give each other the benefit of the doubt, and -- more important than anything else -- respect the quality of mercy.

    Please, tell me where I went wrong in trying to understand this.
  7. Hi Dro!

    They are using their own people as a human shield and as hostages to fend off the overwhelming shadow of a unified Western military challenge.

    If the people choose a rectangle of cloth over human values and if the military chooses make-work over the Laws of War, then the regime will get away with cracking down against the opposition.

    I think many of the people are not that easily fooled. And I think that many of the military are not that easily fooled.
  8. Dro Member

    I really hope you are right. But it has worked before, and if the regime gets desperate enough, I am sure they would be willing to try it.
  9. Ariss Member

    Further thoughts

    As I was left wondering about the tenets of Sufi Mysticism (did I get it correct?), I realized how little I could contribute to this matter - given my low level of knowledge in islamic theology.

    What I discovered about the system, was about using parallels to communism. I was unfortunate enough to live in a part of the world that lied beyond the Iron Courtain. And I can tell you: there are striking resemblances between the current-day Iran and parts of Eastern Europe in the 1950s. I think it is not the underlying ideology that matters. Communism is not a religion, but they still used it as if it were. The regime celebrated itself as 'infallible', 'perfect', 'incorruptable' and 'of the future'. People were equal of course, but there were always some who were 'more equal'. (read Orwell: Animal Farm) Personal cult has reached an alarming degree. Every time I see the huge images of Khom & Kham put on display at all offices and public places, I remember how they did the same with Lenin & Stalin. Even the warlike propaganda ("the West is plotting against us to disturb the peace") is exactly the same. That left me wondering several times if the leaders of the revolution learned their methods in Moscow back in that time. Because it really looks like. Even their gestures, how they kiss each other (soviet leaders used to give 'comrades' kisses' to eachother). Sorry for me trampling into the heart and souls of true believers in the islamic leadership, but that stinks for me - of soviet examples.
  10. Hechicera Member

    Well some of the motivations for the British, French and presumably soon American hikers trials are laid out here.

    Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

    Afrasiabi, again, in the Asia Times. He seems to be arguing that (hilariously) Iran should be treated at least as well as North Korea and the US (and implies other countries) that want to win the release of their detain nationals should send a high level figure (like Clinton) to Iran to negotiate ASAP!

    He then repeats the Amadinejad is now sworn in, and there is nothing you can do about that, but admits there were challenges to the election. However, since he calls out the Obama administration specifically, and the US administration has been outspoken that Khamenai is the person the must negotiate if they want a lasting deal .. this is .. interesting. Esp. in light of his last article that made a point of Ahmadinejad's perhaps not continued favor with Khamenai. Who is Afrasiabi speaking for? Ahmadinejad or Khamenai? Iranian politics is hard to follow.

    He closes with a call for Obama to accept a UN brokered debate with Ahmadinejad. It sounds like they are trying to bait nations with imprisoned national's to grant them either media recognition (an Obama debate) or back-channel negotiations (send us a Clinton-like figure and we'll talk deals for your national).

    Sad when a nation with the history of Iran is reduced to begging on the world stage to be treated as well as a pariah like North Korea, and also reduced to thinly veiled hostage blackmail for official recognition.
  11. Visionary Member

    As much as I'd like to see Ahmadinejad get owned internationally, I wouldn't want anyone to have to appear in a debate with him...eww.
    Besides he's already one of the least respected leaders in the world, there wouldn't be much to gain from having other politicians bring themselves down to his level. :)
  12. Yeah, you got it correct. :)

    Gonna disagree with you there, because I think your posts are very thoughtful.

    Yes, you are right. I had forgotten that bit about creating perfect people.

    Ha ha ha ha! :D Yeah, you got me there! That is so true.

    Yep, got me there too. Thanks for this.
  13. Hechicera Member

    The issue isn't who might win or lose a debate. But, by debating him Obama gives him credibility, esp. if he insists on the debate being billed as one between two presidents. With certain groups, Ahmadinejad would gain points (even while losing points with EU/US) by acting rude and being confrontational with Obama. Then Ahmadinejad can turn around and state he didn't care about the US/EU's feelign anyway. :p

    So, this is a move by Ahmadinejad to use Obama to lend him credibility, not to win a debate, even if he thinks he can score some cheap points in one.

    There was an article back near the time of the election that said that Iran would likely agree to halt the nuclear program, it just wanted the best deal possible (understandably) for this. Since that fact was considered a given, then the Iranian negotiator who brokered the deal would be seen as going down in history and having all the power. This is why Ahmadinejad wants it to be him (I'll leave on whether he would "cheat" and still enrich aside) and the US administration wanted it to be Khamenai. Of course, what we know of Mojtaba may have changed this calculus, unless there were already back-channel talks with him. If there were, I wouldn't know, but that would mean Ahmadinejad may need to watch his back from many directions. But I digress now.
  14. Poor Jabberwock would be outclassed. Perhaps we could take up a collection and send him here first:

    Thought we could use a break. :eek:

    I've often been tempted to think this. In fact, I have thought this. But surely he has learned something along the way. Surely he isn't just another pretty face.
  15. Hechicera Member

    I love Monty Python :)
  16. My money's on the country that currently has 3 hikers being held hostage....
  17. Paul Thomann Member

    The boy who cried wolf

    As I remember the story, it ended with the boy being eaten by the wolf.
    Just hope that it is only the boy and his friends that get eaten.
  18. Paul Thomann Member

    Only one poison apple not to eat

    France, United Kingdom the United States will all act reasonably as long as their citizens are not harmed. I'm not sure that their execution would even lead to war; however a reasonable course of action is to get Mossad involved in order to "arrange" for accidents to happen to members of government. My fear is that this will lead to such a debt that the present Israeli administration will figure that they have till half past forever to negotiate with the Palestinians.

    If the bomb was planted went off missing the target--it was the CIA. If the target dies in: traffic accident, heart attack, dies in their sleep or just turns up missing then Mossad is involved.
  19. ahmadinejad and your cronies, hearken unto me and listen to what fearful words i utter:

    these provocations will not save you. all they ensure is that in the event you prevail over the green revolution, which you won't, the major powers of the world will descend upon you with great fury. you. not the people of iran, but you and your thugs. we will seek you out and murder you, block by block, as we murdered hussein, his sons, and most of his followers.

    you are surrounded. we will not allow you to develop a nuclear weapon. iran will burn before that. your people know this, and that is why they want nothing of you.
  20. ramin.ger Member

    My fear is very similar. Due the fact that none of israel's administrations - especially this one - will ever criticise, or even act against the settlers-movement, they are in a bad situation.
    Indirectly or directly they will always fullfill the demands on the settlers, and at the same time they won't do anything for peace - the 2 - state - solution. Itzak Rabins widow said this once, israel has only the choice of it's enemy. Civil War or Palestinians. Dont get me wrong, this is not A. speaking. It's only my personal point of view. If Obama fails to achieve this foreign goal, he will fails for a second period. And like Simon Peres said, "somebody like oboma is not coming so soon again. We have to decide whether we really want peace or not."
  21. Hechicera Member

    Unless there is a backlash against Obama, and a far-right evangelical gets elected, I am not thinking they will every again find more support than from Obama.

    Judaism is the one religion in the US even after immigration which is a shrinking demographic. Many strong supporters of Israel just go ahead and move there. Islam is growing, but most non Christian religions (except Judaism) are growing rapidly. The largest growing minority is Hispanics. People who's memories from WW2 are from the Latin American perspective are not as pro-Israel. As well, young people (except those on the far right) seem less inclined to support Israel, just because it is Israel, than my generation has been.

    Based on demographics, I would expect the U.S. position to become increasingly less supportive of Israel. Slowly though ... since it is a demographic shift not a political awakening.
  22. while you are correct that popular support for israel will likely decline with the demographic shift, i would point out that US support for israel has never had much popular support. we support israel because it gives us a position in the middle east. but you knew that.

    the only reason the US will stop supporting israel is if there is a strategic reason to do so. given that iraq isn't super keen on letting us establish a permanent military presence there - and we actually prefer not to go where we're unwelcome, believe it or not - i don't see our support for israel going anywhere anytime soon. sure, they won't get away with as much as they did during the bush administration, but they'll still have our guns.
  23. Hechicera Member

    I agree, and that is what I meant by this not being a political awakening. I project it will me more of a slow drift.

    As far as other friendly regimes, there are always the Saudi's, if you want a friend but not a long-term base. If we need a base but not a friend, Qatar. :p And both Bush'es cultivated other friends, especially Iraq, using very different (unsuccessful) tactics. So, even from the right, at the top, I see a desire to not have all the friendly eggs in one basket. Obama is new, so we'll have to critique his tactics once we have seen more of them.

    And, as far as not "going where we are not wanted", in large numbers, no we try not to. However, that is another area where the Latin American immigrant experience will be very different. The US has a centuries long tradition of messing with Latin America whenever it feels it has an interest, welcome or not. So, I think immigrants from there are even more dubious anything that could be (mis)construed as "meddling" than the current generation of mainly European immigrant's descendants.

    You may wish to check the language of my posting handle. I am married to a central American. He is from a country that may just be the most "messed with" of them all. :( Of course, Hispanics are not homogenous. I speak more of general trends. But, if I lived in the Middle East, I'd consider the trend.
  24. ella Member

    Saudi are not friendly, they are a reluctant ally but not friendly. They are more friendly to Europe than to US but they are salafi(aka wahabi) with all thingies pertaining to that faction/school of Islam . Qatar also is not a friend and not an ally. If you want someone more like a friend that would be Kurdistan or Bahrain.
    Also Kurdistan have oil, a lot of oil ,and if USA will help to put Kirkuk in the Kurdistan they would be quite good friends, much better than Saudis or Turkey. Although Turkey is in NATO so one have to take it into consideration.
  25. ella Member

    Really? I thought that it was Spain and Portugal who messed with Latin America and South America.
    I also thought that Cuba was messing with USA, particularly concerning the support for USSR, giving them (USSR) bases, taking money from them, allowing them to do all funny things.
    Such countries as Austro-Hungarian Empire and France messed up in Mexican affairs approximately hundred fifty years ago. They also were messing in US affarirs.
    And so on and so forth,
    So messing up usually goes both ways, not in one way only as many people seem to think. Furthermore this "messing up" could not have centuries long tradition - :( - maximum 2 centuries
  26. ella Member

    For example?
  27. Shhh-IRAN Member

    I don't think it matters what Clinton says now. The regime has made it clear it's determined to "pin it on the West." If only the "support" was effective. I'm missing the value/impact of being "outraged."
  28. Hechicera Member


    Here is a good link on US "messing with" Nicaragua 1909-1933.
    Articles: 1909-1933, Nicaragua - Historical Text Archive
    My husband rattled of at least 5 countries with heavy "intervention" and regime changes at will. In the pre-Cuban revolution days, the phrase my husband used was "Cuba was the US's brothel". So, the US messed with them before they had a revolution, got backing from the USSR and got hostile back at the US. Also, read about the creation of Panama.

    On other non-Christian religions' growth, via the ARIS report:

    1990 2009 Religious Group
    687,000 ~2 Million Eastern Religions
    527,000 ~1.3 Million Muslim
    3.1 Million 2.6 Million Jewish
    ~1.3 Million 2.8 Million New Religious Movements and Other Religions

    The report grouped the religions in the survey this way:

    Eastern Religions: Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Baha’i, Shintoist, Zoroastrian, Sikh.

    New Religious Movements and Other Religions: Scientology, New Age, Eckankar, Spiritualist, Unitarian-Universalist, Deist, Wiccan, Pagan, Druid, Indian Religion, Santeria, Rastafarian.

    Christianity declined in numerical membership, "No Religion" was the largest category of increase.
  29. ella Member


    But you are not really correct.

    Christianity did not decline in numerical membership, it slightly declined percentage wise. Total Christians 1990 - 151,225,00 / 2008 - 173,402,000

    According to the ARIS report you are correct in saying that Christianity declined percentage wise as well as numerically between 1990 to 2001, nearly all other religions included Muslims increased, there was also a very large increase is agnostics/atheists. (larger then increase in any religious denomination including Muslims) But from 2001 to 2008 Catholics increased both percentage wise as well as numerically (24.5% to 25.1%), Christian generic increased both percentage wise and numerically (10.8 to 14.2) protestant denominations increased from 2.9 to 3.1 and overall christian religion decreased very little. Eastern religion decreased from 1.0% to 09.%, no religion increased from 09 to 1.2% and muslims increased from 05% to 0.6%. So in reality the increases where mainly between 1990 to 2001 and later it just had more to do with higher birth rate and immigration than with conversions to other religions.
    As for interventions - USSR backed up all anti-american movements before USA intervened in Latin America, from the beginning of USSR Lenin's revolution. They boasted about it in Eastern Europe and in Russia itself. They were helping all the "revolutionary" movements with weapons and advisors, the advisors come from all eastern European countries. And all "socialist" countries had to pay for that "revolutionary" movements - very like Iranian have now to pay for Hezbullah and Hamas but the difference is that the Khomeini/Khamenei regime is Iranian's own inventions, the regimes in Eastern Europe were not their own - they were imperialistic Russia "interventions".
    So we do have different view on US "intervention" and USSR" help".
  30. Hechicera Member

    I am looking at 1990 to 2009. While the slowing pace of immigration is having the rate of increase slow, the trend still exists. This immigrant group tends to pull more than its share of influence as most are from the high tech boom and came on work visas for high paying jobs. So, they and their children will have money and influence in the next generation. So while the rise of Athiests/Agnostics demographically was certainly the most impressive number in the survey, the increasing existence and influence of new immigrants of varied religions is not something I would dismiss. This all fits with the broad demographic changes I see.

    The Catholic failure to decline is also due to the Hispanic immigrants, which I have been mentioning. Most Hispanic immigrants see the US as a historically heavy-handed and meddle-some neighbor. Many US supported governments were quite bad.

    My Nicaraguan father-in-law lived through one invasion, he was given a nickname by the US marines as he was blonde as a child (so he stood out to them). His parents lived through the first. My husband said his father told the story of the marines attacking the early Sandinistas in the mountains they learned to use machetes well, and got good at a style of killing they nicknamed the "tuxedo cut". This was from the V shape formed by the two slashes on each side of the neck and upper chest which was their preferred method of killing with a machete. This tends to stick in the memory more than some USSR monetary influence. Which was certainly there.

    While the USSR may have spent money to counter US influence, we landed marines, mined harbors, used naval blockades, built-bases, told governments to fall or else, ignored court rulings agains the use of all of the above, and used "military advisors" at will for smaller operations. This doesn't even cover the CIA programs or the "School of the Americas" (google that history if you are unfamiliar). That is what Hispanics see as their reality, whether we agree with them or not. So, that will have some effect on political trends as this is another strong immigrant base, and rising demographic.
  31. Ariss Member

    The US influence over the rest of the Americas is probably best desribed as "stressed by transgressions of the past". I am aware of that the US always regarded Middle and South America as its own backyard (see Monroe's doctrine). Shortly said, they wanted no one to enter that circle of US interests, but otherwise cared very little of those nations' welfare.
    You should note, however, that the US has exacly the opposite image in Europe (especially in the east). They were held at such a high esteem that was nothing short of praising them as "saviors". Perhaps it was just the Marshall plan, perhaps it's much more. So unlike the Latin-American states, US interventions were actually warmly welcome in Europe (the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbians might tell you a different story, but all the rest of the nations (outside Russia) were - and still are - approving the American presence).

    I am left wondering wether the Iranians are closer to the first group, or to the second one... After all, the western states have not even supported, but bereaved them of democracy, when the chance came. But there may come a time to rectify the bills, and help Iran in developing its own modern democratic state. Who knows? Nevertheless I think the US and the UK (especially the former) owes Iran a lot.
  32. Hechicera Member

    I agree completely with your first paragraph. I am completely aware of the Monroe Doctrine, and the actual involvement was quite dramatic (and usually undiplomatic). That was the point was making about changing demographics in the US. Children, grand-children of European immigrants (to the US) have a very different world view than the current Hispanic and Asian/near east immigrant wave. I had an adopted set of grandparents from Germany. My mother and father-in law are Hispanic and also now living in the US. I can ask my German-American aunts and uncles the same age as my Nicaraguan-American in-laws and get very, very different answers. So, I see this all first hand.

    As this new immigrant wave slowly becomes the new majority in the next generation or two, I'm sure some priorities in foreign policy and thoughts on the US's role will change. Do not expect major changes next week.

    Am I odd? An American who can think beyond next week? :eek:

    With Irag and Afghnistan as neighbors, I think Iran may be guided by the cultural difficulties US troops have had in both places, I would think might be hesitant to have them on their soil working with Iranian civilians. The implications for Iran go further than the US, the performance of NATO in Afghanistan has not been reassuring militarily.

    I wonder if there is a danger that NATO may be seen as weak by more militant middle-eastern regimes due to poor internal coordination and commitment after Afghanistan?
  33. ella Member


    You think that the children of immigrants will have the same views as their parents. And I am not sure that you are correct. For example a son of my Chinese friends who has been born outside China has world view and behaviour more like his present friends than like his parents.
    Children and grandchildren of European immigrants have completely different world view from their parents and grandparents. And their parents have completely different world view from the people from their original countries. Grandchildren of immigrants from Europe have an American world view, not European world view. And the same would probably be true about immigration from Latin America, although you are right that there would be some changes in world views. But I am not sure the changes would be as linear as you think .

    As for Iran, neither US nor UK owes Iran anything. It was not Americans who broke political relationships with Iran, it was Iranians themselves by the attacking American Embassy. . The Islamic Revolution began in 1979, American Embassy was attacked on November 1979 and the US broke relations with Iran on April 7, 1980. If US were so against Iran and against democratic movements of Iran why it did wait so long to break the diplomatic relationships with new "democratic" government?. You are talking about owing Iran things, why? It was Khomeini himself who said "This action has many benefits. ... This has united our people. Our opponents do not dare act against us. We can put the constitution to the people's vote without difficulty .." And the documents from "nest of spies" involved shah people as well as high Islamic officials, officials of new republic.

    I think that Islamic revolution with all its consequences erases Mosadeq "affair".
  34. ella Member

    NATO have been seen as a weak for quite a long time now. And more militant middle-eastern regimes for a long time seen US as a power going to the drain. That is why Osama bin Laden attacked US and that is why some ME countries seem to look at US and NATO with derision. I think that they are wrong about US and about NATO but if they want to think so,...............
    But - many middle easter regimes also view Iran as weak, especially now. But I don't think Iran is really weak. They are also wrong in that case.
  35. Hechicera Member

    Well, I live here. And one side of my family was here before the Europeans. We have seen changes. You are right, no child has the exact views of the parents. Yet, some attitudes often are handed down, the stories they remember from grandparents are different. Some immigrant communities keep stronger cohesion for longer than others.

    And, an interesting thing in the US, they mix. My son has the stories from his Nicaraguan Abuelos, from his Pashtun friend's parents, and with another friend's mother translating talked via webcam to another friend's grandparents in China. His world view will be very different than my adopted parent's first generation strict-Lutheran German world view. My son and his generation will make choices my parent's generation would never have considered, and that I may even wonder at. So, yes, it will be an American worldview. But it will not be the same as it was before, it is looking very different actually.

    As a general trend over the next two generations, I think as someone here, who's family has seen changes and who has seen changes herself over her life, I am comfortable making my observations. There are slow changes afoot. And if I am wrong, well, I probably won't live long enough to find that out. ;) Feel free to laugh at my grave if this is so.

    I am sorry, do you have me confused with another poster on this paragraph? I do not have this viewpoint, so I am not sure what you reference here.
  36. ella Member

    I am not going to laugh.
    I don't live in US but some of my family live in US neighborhood :) and I still think you may be wrong.
    You are right, that was the Ariss who has such views. Sorry. :eek:

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins