Iran attack on

JordanD said:
I think it's fair to hope for better for the Iranian people and the region and to also not want us to get involved in Iraq 2.0, especially at the behest of a nation who probably could have handled this themselves?
Click to expand...
Yup, multiple things can be true at once.
 
I understand many here will discount the fact that Israel took out the leadership and the US targeted the munitions and weapon building capabilities, it's a murky distinction but Trump did not kill the ayatollah.
 
bike21 said:
I think most rational folks want what’s best for all citizens of the world and Iran’s leaders and methods are high on my •list to be gone. As I mentioned above, our own regime that shares similar ethos has launched attacks alongside another nationalist govermnment. It’s all very dumb.

I hope your family is safe and Iran can once again become a beacon of thought and advancement, but at the same time I don’t cheer the methods being used to attain that goal.
Click to expand...

That’s why I’m very cautious about this whole thing, whether what’s being done or how it’s being done. It has any probability of going right or going wrong, at any given time, and in any given way. With an active revolution in progress, which makes it different from Iraq (as does many other things), there’s only so much we can or should do to facilitate that. Directly supporting it in ‘53 and mostly ignoring it in ‘79, have both not worked out well. And even though the shah and the Islamic state couldn't have been further apart politically and in the religious realm, both suffered from human rights and civil rights abuses in their own respective ways. Neither regime was clean in that respect. Of course, every time there’s talk of getting rid of the Islamists, Shah Jr makes appearances in media giving his 2 cents and vying to bring the shah reign back. But the shah title is still tainted as is the Islamist title now, and no clear successors from any side have emerged, if a senior official of the regular military is willing to stand up to the IRGC military leadership, something may brew positively, assuming a civilian candidate can’t or won’t step up. But it’s ultimately up to them. If we screw up by meddling too much with names of people and try to play masters of the universe with this, then the imperialism title will come back around, and only help fuel the Islamists again just as it did in ‘79. House of cards is putting it lightly.
 
The police have arrived to answer a 911 call, of domestic violence. Prior to the 911 call, the abusive husband was beating his wife • bloody and unconscious. Now the police liberators have arrived to take the abusive husband to jail. But now the wife is beating on the police and obstructing them from doing their job. Saying, "no don't take him away, I love him. He's an abuser, but he's my abuser. I don't want a foreign entity to come in and handle the situation, and arrest my husband."

This situation is playing out now, from what I just read. All those Iranian protesters, that were protesting their government, are now condemning the attack on their country by the US and Israel...
 
MikeD said:
That’s why I’m very cautious about this whole thing, whether what’s being done or how it’s being done. It has any probability of going right or going wrong, at any given time, and in any given way. With an active revolution in progress, which makes it different from Iraq (as does many other things), there’s only so much we can or should do to facilitate that. Directly supporting it in ‘53 and mostly ignoring it in ‘79, have both not worked out well. And even though the shah and the Islamic state couldn't have been further apart politically and in the religious realm, both suffered from human rights and civil rights abuses in their own respective ways. Neither regime was clean in that respect. Of course, every time there’s talk of getting rid of the Islamists, Shah Jr makes appearances in media giving his 2 cents and vying to bring the shah reign back. But the shah title is still tainted as is the Islamist title now, and no clear successors from any side have emerged, if a senior official of the regular military is willing to stand up to the IRGC military leadership, something may brew positively, assuming a civilian candidate can’t or won’t step up. But it’s ultimately up to them. If we screw up by meddling too much with names of people and try to play masters of the universe with this, then the imperialism title will come back around, and only help fuel the Islamists again just as it did in ‘79. House of cards is putting it lightly.
Click to expand...
It would be too symmetrical to actually work - that Ike's acquiesce to the Brits for help in overthrowing the democratically elected Mosaddegh could be undone by a US bombing campaign to return Iran to a chance at self rule but I remain doubtful. One thing I never really understood was why the Brits don't get more smoke for the events of 1953 and the US takes ALL the heat for that. I get that Ike helped via the CIA, but it was only cause the Brits begged him to because Mosaddegh nationalized Anglo-Persian (now BP). I mean, we had Saudi (Aramco) and Kuwait (Gulf). It's not like we needed Iran for oil anyway.
 
MikeD said:
You’ve mostly described nightly dinners of my mom’s cooking. Grilled barg beef with beefsteak tomatoes and white onions sliced in half and grilled atop fire also. Potatoes were sliced and placed with a little bit of olive oil at the bottom of a pan, with nearly done saffron rice placed on top of that to finish. The rice would finish, and at the bottom of the pan would be the crispy potato slices. Everything was served with plain yogurt, but with a little bit of garlic and lemon juice mixed within.
Click to expand...
I'm a huge, huge fan of that food, and I've been lucky to have several amazing persian markets near where I live.
 
NovemberEcho said:
Convenient that we just secured a close supply of oil before Iran closes the straight of Hormuz
Click to expand...
Trump is not really great for the oil patch and additional sources of foreign oil go over like a wet fart in the Permian Basin and other parts of Texas. In fact, I really have a difficult time imagining a worse president for Texas - from O&G to international trade to immigration crackdowns and the war on higher Ed than Trump and the current GOP.
 
Found a better one:
Fighting for 2.jpeg
 
WacoFan said:
Trump is not really great for the oil patch and additional sources of foreign oil go over like a wet fart in the Permian Basin and other parts of Texas. In fact, I really have a difficult time imagining a worse president for Texas - from O&G to international trade to immigration crackdowns and the war on higher Ed than Trump and the current GOP.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the last time the Iranian navy tried to touch one of Americas boats it was reduced to ashes in about 8 hours, this was decades ago and the current tech is different. Maybe they'll try to close the strait, it's a big game of FAFO.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5v6hlRyeHE
 
WacoFan said:
It would be too symmetrical to actually work - that Ike's acquiesce to the Brits for help in overthrowing the democratically elected Mosaddegh could be undone by a US bombing campaign to return Iran to a chance at self rule but I remain doubtful. One thing I never really understood was why the Brits don't get more smoke for the events of 1953 and the US takes ALL the heat for that. I get that Ike helped via the CIA, but it was only cause the Brits begged him to because Mosaddegh nationalized Anglo-Persian (now BP). I mean, we had Saudi (Aramco) and Kuwait (Gulf). It's not like we needed Iran for oil anyway.
Click to expand...

‘53 wasn’t even our fight, like you mention. Wasn’t our problem. As this was post WWII, and both the CIA and the Cold War were
still in their infancy, I think this was one of our first meddlings in the whole masters of the universe foreign policy that was big during the Cold War era.
 
🦈💜 said:
I'm a huge, huge fan of that food, and I've been lucky to have several amazing persian markets near where I live.
Click to expand...

It’s great stuff when done correctly. Though I’ve seen it screwed up in a few commercial “authentic” restaurants. Purely my own fault for even going to one of those places.
 
MikeD said:
‘53 wasn’t even our fight, like you mention. Wasn’t our problem. As this was post WWII, and both the CIA and the Cold War were
still in their infancy, I think this was one of our first meddlings in the whole masters of the universe foreign policy that was big during the Cold War era.
Click to expand...
My hunch has always been that Wilson (my "worst ever POTUS post Civil War until Trump) got us into WW1 because the war debt England and France were carrying made it imperative for them to win and pay us back. My hunch has always been that Ike did this in Iran to help Britain stay out of our pockets (or at least limit how deep) during the post-war economic recovery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top