Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marina
I couldn't really tell why,xmad . Maybe it's something to do with the Mullah-ruled , extremist country , which don't want their women rising above the rank of house pets, they don't want to contend with alternative lifestyles, a competetive capitalist consumer culture, or a world where they don't have a death strangle on their people. Dangerous in another words .
No ?
|
Iranians aren't expansionists so they pose no threat to any else. It doesn't matter if a country is terrible to its people. You have China, not exactly a shining beacon of human rights executing more journalists than any one else and they have their eye on Taiwan. By your reasoning they shouldn't have any nukes either.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spyretto
No. The creation of the Islamic Republic and the anti-Western sentiment was a reaction towards the American-UK led coup against the people's elected prime minister of Iran which reinstated a former dictatorial regime backed by the aforementioned superpowrers - which went against the people's will, crashing civil liberties etc.
Actually, 20th century world politics are quite simple: the U.S. and their close allies would crash democratic regimes whenever it suited their own interests. 21th century world politics would see the U.S. undoing their own doings in a pledge to fight for democracy.
The propaganda on how extremist the Irani goverment is, and how the people of Iran suffer, may serve Bush just right if he decides to invade Iran to "liberate" them - despite the fact that Iran was always in the receiving end in recent history and never showed any territorial claims over its neighbours - as, other, former U.S. allies did.
What we're doing, in reality, is creating even more enemies in the Arab world, an area in the world which is in our best interest to have only friends.
As for Iran's development of nuclear technology, it's perfectly ok, as long as it is developed as a source of energy; that is what they claim anyway. Nuclear energy will become a priority in this century as the recources of natural energy are being exhausted and the pollution of the environment continues to the same dramatic acceleration.
|
Mohammed Mossadegh, the former elected leader of Iran, was a communist. Had the Iranian Revolution actually been about the deseating of Mossadegh than Iran would have reverted back to communism. Iranians were angry about the Shah, yes, but the Fundamentalists manipulated all of the political parties involved in the Revolution and after it was won the Ayatollah arrested every single one of them. This was a tragic case of Iranians getting more than what they bargained for. As well, the exact same result happened with the past election of Ahmednijad (sp?); all of the moderates protested the election by refusing to vote, they argued that the leaders that they elected never actually did anything. Once again they got more than what they bargained for.
Though the West may have been implicit in Iranian politics back then, what is happening now has nothing to do with them. Iran is so pro-West that if Bush had in fact invaded Iran rather Iraq, the troops would have actually been greeted as liberators.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amber
the country was renamed from Persia to Iran precisely to assert their Aryan origin
|
Actually it was the other way around, it is now called Iran to assert their Islamic origin and deny everything else.