General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSaudi Arabia vs. Iran: Why do we pick on Iran?
I'm not a big fan of Iran in the least but they don't stir the massive amount of shit up that Saudi Arabia has by sponsoring Wahbism and, by extension, pouring money into all those crazy terrorist organizations that gave us...9/11, the bombing of the USS Cole, etc., etc. I know about the oil thing regarding Saudi Arabia but past that this is ridiculous.
I mean Saudi Arabia, as a whole, has been much more of a headache in the Middle East than I've seen unless the media are holding back info that I haven't heard. Am I missing something or have I outlined things fairly well?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)They're the more natural allies in the ME.
madokie
(51,076 posts)right after high school and we graduated in '66. He said that they were nice to him and treated him like one of them. had no problems at all then. For all intent and purposes he said he couldn't tell that much difference between there then and here then. They went to school graduated then some went on to college same as here. they had hospitals and good roads, cars and all the stuff we have. For the most part.
He was a tool and die maker and thats what he was there doing
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,375 posts)I don't think Iran today is the Iran of the 1960's.
madokie
(51,076 posts)at any rate we need to get the fuck out and leave them alone
If I was Iran I'd be working 24/7 on building a bomb because once they did we'd all leave them alone. It would definitely be a stabilizing thing for the area. IMO
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)No it definitely would not.
Iran already stirs up enough trouble in Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Yemen and the Gulf States. They would be even more brazen with nuclear weapons to back up their threats, weapons deliveries, cash and training of terrorists via the Quds Force.
Not to mention Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf States all going nuclear in response hardly seems "stabilizing" to the Middle East.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)when I read someone making a reply to me who are talking out of their ass I don't take them seriously from that point on. Sorry
Good day
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)....cause the Quds force are just Boy Scouts, they don't really supply arms, training and money to Hezbollah, Shiite militias in Iraq, Assad in Syria and the Houthis in Yemen etc...
And Saudi Arabia surely couldn't afford to buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan, and Eygpt would just love to have the Shiite Iranians have the bomb. Yes very stabilizing said no serious person ever.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)We installed the Shah with the Eisenhower/Dulles CIA, against the peoples will. Jimmy Carter refused to help him and he was over thrown. Quote "Students" took over the US Embassy, we place sanctions, Iran became friends with Russia. A very condensed summary.
whathehell
(29,100 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)And Iran, as a technologically advance regional power, represents a potential deterrent to Western goals in the region.
Oil is currently the life-blood of human civilization. Controlling it offers tremendous economic, geopolitical and strategic advantage over everyone else. It's odd how people underestimate it as a prime mover in the conduct of the most power empire ever.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)We don't import nearly as much oil from Saudi Arabia as we did some years ago, and beginning in 2013 the US became a net exporter of oil. Even if we were somehow cut off from buying Saudi Arabian oil tomorrow it would not be that big of a deal in economic terms; it would push prices up a bit because of some extra refining work (oil from the Middle East is comparatively clean and pure compared to some other sources) but nothing worse than what we saw during the recession.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm
At this point the oil matters much less than regional stability and arms exports, and that decline in significance is becoming a problem for Saudi Arabia. My bet is that in 25 years we will have adeveloped a strategic partnership with Iran whose interests align much more closely with those of the US than anyone wants to admit right now.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Any bible thumping end timers in the west can get a free plane ticket as well.
Winner gets the shitty patch of desert-
Octafish
(55,745 posts)What about the people who live on the "shitty patch of desert"?
Does your compassion extend to the people of Israel?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)We have plenty of oil here...
Plus we can just take over Venezuela if needed 
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Does the word "hypocrisy" mean anything to you?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I forgot our CIA already owns them right, just trying to overthrow Maduro
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Whose side do you think I'm on, Democracy's?
How many millions of lives?
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)We have been raping and pillaging and destroying Iran for decades.
We also have been propping up the Saudi dictators since the 1950s.
You may not like Iran, but I guarantee US taxpayers are as responsible for the current state of the country as any Iranians.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Iran had free elections, the US was afraid he would be a Leftie, the US overthrew him, installed a bloodthirsty dictator, the Ayatollahs overthrew the US-backed dictator and ever since the national motto of Iran has been "Death to America!".
And the US prefers to forget that this hostility is their fault.
marmar
(77,106 posts)Seems to be a recurring theme, all over the world: Chile, Haiti ..........
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)The British government controlled an oil company that had a contract with Iran.
They repeatedly ripped the Iranians off and broke agreements with them.
Iran elected a leader that nationalised the oil industry.
The CIA overthrew that leader (led on the ground by Teddy Roosevelt's grandson) and installed someone that they thought would give the Brits free reign again.
That was not the first Western coup in Iran however. The first one was in the 1920s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_Persian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah
"In the aftermath of 1921 events, relations of Persian government with the Sheikhdom of Mohammerah had also become strained. In 1924, Sheikh Khazal rebellion broke out in Khuzestan, being the first modern Arab nationalist uprising led by the Sheikh of Mohammerah Khaz'al al-Ka'bi. The rebellion was quickly and effectively suppressed with minimal casualties.
Rezā Khan was placed on the throne by the British in 1926, and many of those involved in the coup were either killed or put in prison. One General, Sepahbod Amir Ahmadi, tried to stand up against the establishment of a new monarch, but on a visit to his imprisoned brother-in-law, General Heydargholi Pessian, he confessed that his efforts were being thwarted by the British. Reza Khan was finally declared Shah, taking the surname Pahlavi and thus founding the Pahlavi dynasty. The Pahlavis ruled in Iran until the revolution of 1979, when the government was toppled and replaced with that of the Islamic Republic of Iran, headed by Ruhollah Khomeini.[5] The day after the Shah left Iran, the revolutionary leaders declared Colonel Mohammad Taghi Pessian the first Martyr of the Revolution although Pessian was a Secularist."
The Brits also invaded Iran militarily in WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)
lunatica
(53,410 posts)It all started with the oil in Iran. We backed the Shah who was every bit as bad as Saddam Hussein in his brutality to his people. Then we protected him when the Iranians deposed him and let him come to the US for cancer treatment.
We and the West and the Iranian people don't have good history
http://www.history.com/topics/iran-hostage-crisis
"The Iran hostage crisis had its origins in a series of events that took place nearly a half-century before it began. The source of tension between Iran and the U.S. stemmed from an increasingly intense conflict over oil. British and American corporations had controlled the bulk of Iran’s petroleum reserves almost since their discovery–a profitable arrangement that they had no desire to change. However, in 1951 Iran’s newly elected prime minister, a European-educated nationalist named Muhammad Mossadegh, announced a plan to nationalize the country’s oil industry. In response to these policies, the American C.I.A. and the British intelligence service devised a secret plan to overthrow Mossadegh and replace him with a leader who would be more receptive to Western interests."
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)But even then that's the only real incident we've had with Iran that I've ever heard. In every single other case it has been us wronging Iran with Mossdegh and Operation Ajax as you outline and our subsequent support of the Shah.
As for the other who commented on the "Death To Americans" I get the impression that's only a bit of the face now of Iran and most of the youth, who make up the majority of Iran, don't believe it.
To top all this off, which I find surreal, is that Iran's Islam is the outlier, Shia is considered well in the minority and outside of most peoples understanding/acceptance of the Quran, which is Sunni.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Other countries in the Middle East have ambivalent feelings towards us. Iran quite openly causes problems for us. They have essentially declared war on us in every way they can. And they're determined to be a nuclear weapons country which makes them really threatening to us and to their neighbors. If the West allows Iran to become a nuclear power it could create a great deal of damage in the world. None of the other Middle Eastern countries has the deadly capabilities that Iran has and therefore, because they openly hate us we have to consider them very dangerous.
We helped create the monster so we have to deal with it now. They are a very real threat to us. Isis is nothing compared to Iran.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Iran has MUCH more to fear from the US than the US has to fear from Iran.
Name a single war Iran has started in the last 200 Years. How many Americans have been killed by Iran?
The US has killed or helped kill 100,000s of Iranian in the same time. The west has overthrown Iranian governments and invaded it militarily in the same time. And created and trained it's notorious secret police in the same time.
Iran should be scared to death of the US. The US has almost zero to fear from Iran.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)If you want to call BS, it's best if you know what you're talking about
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)but nothing in either backs up your claim that Iran is a big threat - bigger than ISIS - to the US... Iran has been repeatedly screwed over by the US and the UK, and has yet to launch any sort of actual war on the US, other than a war of words...
I know it's popular to hate on Iran, but between Iran and the US, the US is the bad guy, by FAR.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)This is a stupid argument. Try comprehending what you read.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)I didn't say you didn't say it wasn't the US' fault.
Who cares if you did or didn't say that - though it obviously is.
What I did say, which you've ignored twice - or as you would say, you didn't comprehend - lol - is that Iran does NOT pose a huge threat to America. Saying they do is nonsense. Saying they're a bigger threat than ISIS is laughable.
Iran has almost ZERO history of being aggressive to any other country. They have funded proxies in a limited way, much much much more limited than the US, but that in NO WAY makes them a threat to the US.
The US on the other hand is a HUGE threat to Iran and it's civilian population. And unlike Iran and US citizens has a LONG history of killing Iranian civilians. Many many many thousands of them.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Isis has a long way to go to catch up to Iran. I have no doubt that they'll try though.
http://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/terrorism
"Since the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979, one of the defining hallmarks of the Iranian regime has been its habitual use of terrorism against the United States and its allies throughout the world and its ties to terrorist organizations. In addition to carrying out direct attacks, Iran has committed terrorism by proxy through Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, militias in Iraq, and a plethora of other terrorist groups. Iran has a long history of terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Israel, mainly through bombings, abductions, and hijackings. Iranian dissidents and opposition leaders living in exile have also been subject to assassination.
The U.S. government noted that in 2012 there was “a marked resurgence of Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism,” with Iran and Hezbollah’s terrorist activity reaching “a tempo unseen since the 1990s.”
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)and multiply it by 100 and you're still not even half way to what the US has done to Iran.
I know it's fun to play at Iran being a super villain country, but the US is a much bigger threat to Iran, and the world, than Iran could dream to be.
I mean you realise that some estimates have 1 million Iranians killed in the US proxy war with Iran, the Iran Iraq war... another war that Iran didn't start.
The US also shot down an Iran passenger plane - killing dozens of children - and never even apologized for it.
You've just bought into US propaganda.
reddread
(6,896 posts)EX500rider
(10,884 posts)Nonsense, Iraq started and fought that war all on their own with Soviet supplied weaponry, the US didn't want either side to win so we gave the Iraqis some satellite intel during the war, but that hardly makes it a "US proxy war"
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)'United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that the "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."'
[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."
"About two of every seven licenses for the export of "dual use" technology items approved between 1985 and 1990 by the U.S. Department of Commerce "went either directly to the Iraqi armed forces, to Iraqi end-users engaged in weapons production, or to Iraqi enterprises suspected of diverting technology" to weapons of mass destruction, according to an investigation by House Banking Committee Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez. Confidential Commerce Department files also reveal that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military. These included computers, communications equipment, aircraft navigation and radar equipment."
At times, thanks to the White House's secret backing for the intelligence-sharing, U.S. intelligence officers were actually sent to Baghdad to help interpret the satellite information. As the White House took an increasingly active role in secretly helping Saddam direct his armed forces, the United States even built an expensive high-tech annex in Baghdad to provide a direct down-link receiver for the satellite intelligence and better processing of the information...
The American military commitment that had begun with intelligence-sharing expanded rapidly and surreptitiously throughout the Iran–Iraq War. A former White House official explained that "by 1987, our people were actually providing tactical military advice to the Iraqis in the battlefield, and sometimes they would find themselves over the Iranian border, alongside Iraqi troops."
--
So billions in weapons, advisors and troops on the ground, endless military intelligence - precursors for WMDs and satellite data to target the WMDs with.
"Officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency dispatched to Baghdad were actually planning day-by-day strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi Air Force."Iraq used this data to target Iranian positions with chemical weapons, says ambassador Galbraith."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
--
But yeah it was Russia.
You're completely brainwashed by US propaganda. The Iran Iraq war WAS a proxy war against Iran and was in every way possible facilitated by the US.
It killed at minimum over 100,000 Iranian civilians and is onlying one of the numerous ways that US tax dollars and the US military and CIA has been used to try and destroy Iran, often purely for financial gain.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)Hardly a US proxy war. Started all on his own by Saddam.
Although it is widely believed in the Middle East that the United States gave Saddam Hussein a "green light" to invade Iran, available evidence suggests that this allegation is completely lacking in foundation and also improbable due to the danger it would have presented for the American hostages still held in Iran
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)You also seem to think that a proxy war means that the US had to start it hardly the case. But once Saddam started it the US funded it and kept in going and going and going.
They also helped Saddam use WMDs on Iranians and shielded Iraq in the UN. And they were involved directly in combat roled.
The Soviets on the other hand were strictly neutral for the first few years, as they wanted to be allies to BOTH Iran and Iraq. They didn't really go all in until 1985-1986.
You REALLY need to ask why you're being so dishonest about this. What is driving you to try and twist history around in such extreme ways. It's pretty strange.
The US has been very awful towards Iran for decades, killing many, many Iranian civilians, overthrowing It's democratically elected government for financial gain, training and funding it's awful secret police, selling and using WMDs on its civilians and soldiers, shooting a civilian air liner down, threatening to bomb it, nuke it and invade it.
That's what your government has done.
Compare that to what Iran has done. Armed and funded a limited amount of regional terrorist groups. Somwthing the US has done one multiple continents for decades. That's it though. It hasn't launched a single war in hundreds of years. Imagine being able to say that about America.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)You know what's worse than that? Playing apologist for the mass murder of civilians, because it suits your worldview.
I'd rather be rude and honest than politely lie about murder.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)....we gave them just enough help to not lose.
"killing many, many Iranian civilians" besides the accidental shot down of the Iranian airline, what "many civilians" did the US kill?
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)we gave them chemical and biological weapons, we helped them target those weapons
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/
We also created one of the most oppressive secret police organisation in history, which we trained and funder for years as it killed and tortured civilians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
We also overthrew it's democratically elected government, which led to the deaths of thousands of civilians....
If you don't know about these things why are you arguing about them? These issues were openly discussed at the time in congress and the US government...
And btw: you have seen exactly how much help we gave them, form literally fighting Iran, to helping them buy weapons, to giving them money, to selling them biological and chemical weapons, and on and on.. oh and intervening with the UN repeatedly on their behalf... I know there's a LOT of Reagan officials that have tried to rewrite history about that time, but if you look into a bit you will see conclusively that the US very much wanted Iraq to win...
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)Pretty much everybody involved is currently dead.
And in all your examples it was either Iranians or Iraqis killing Iranians.
And Germany had the most to do with Iraqi WMD programs.
As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kolb helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program
As for the CDC supplying samples:
"The CDC was abiding by World Health Organization guidelines that encouraged the free exchange of biological samples among medical researchers..." according to Thomas Monath, CDC lab director. It was a request "which we were obligated to fulfill," as described in WHO and UN treaties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biological_weapons_program
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)but dogmatic Israeli propagandists, like the neocons and their Christian Zionist rubes. Hezbollah are Lebanese nationalists that have not bothered anyone since they forced Israel out of Southern Lebanon.
What a bs website.
But one should know to stop reading just as soon as you claimed they are a bigger threat than isis. This rhetoric is truly exposing the bullshit artistry of the neocons and the liberal interventionists friends.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Palestine_relations
"Hezbollah are Lebanese nationalists that have not bothered anyone since they forced Israel out of Southern Lebanon."
I guess if you don't count that whole fighting in Syria thing...or firing rockets into Israel..or bombing buses in Bulgaria..etc etc..
Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian Civil War has been substantial almost since the beginning of armed insurgency in late 2011, and turned into active support and troops deployment since 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Burgas_bus_bombing
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)I want them to get Isis. I don't feel bad for Isis and don't consider it terror when someone fights them off. The fact that wiki defines fighting isis as terror is more proof that their credibility is low. Fighting Isis is a wonderful use of their skills.
The rockets on Israel are always a response to Israeli incursions in Lebanese airspace, and hardly ever hit anything. Israel should learn to stay out. It had no right to annex any part of Lebanon and no right to take offense that people fought it back. Israelis have killed far more Lebonese than Hezbollah ever did to Israelis. Israel makes enemies by being a bad neighbor.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)...against all the Syrian rebel groups, on orders from their Iranian masters.
I am not the one who said: Hezbollah are Lebanese nationalists that have not bothered anyone..
Providing "direct assistance" to al Qaeda, including training and explosives, in orchestrating the 1998 United States embassy bombings.
In 2002, Singapore accused Hezbollah of recruiting Singaporeans in a failed 1990s plot to attack U.S. and Israeli ships in the Singapore Straits.
The January 15, 2008, bombing of a U.S. Embassy vehicle in Beirut.
In 2009, a Hezbollah plot in Egypt was uncovered, where Egyptian authorities arrested 49 men for planning attacks against Israeli and Egyptian targets in the Sinai Peninsula.
The 2012 Burgas bus bombing, killing 6, in Bulgaria.
Training Shia insurgents against US troops during the Iraq War.
etc..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)They fight for Assad and he is their Lord and Master, but also against Assad by supporting Isis. Gosh that makes so much sense.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)They helped Al Qaeda back in 1998 with the US embassy bombings in Africa.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)When was this invasion of iran by the US? I must have missed it...
reddread
(6,896 posts)oh boy.
and they have plenty of deadly capabilities.
you must have slept through a LOT of attacks on the US military presence over there.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But maybe you think the US is not to blame for anything. We're just poor victims.
reddread
(6,896 posts)I think I have a pretty good attitude for someone whose family was destroyed by the death of my closest relative in the Khobar Towers truck bombing. I know much better who to blame than the US govt that tried to pin the deed on Iran and gave SA notables a pass in the aftermath of 9-11-01.
Feel free to name an ambivalent country in the ME.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)Now, a parallel case against Iran, even ignoring anything specifically against the US, could be made that they have supported Hezzbolah, which is reportedly responsible for the assassination of Lebanon Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. They are also the strongest supporter of Assad in Syria and there are reports that Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers as well as Hezzbollah are fighting for Assad there. They are also a supporter of Hamas - even though Hamas is a Sunni group.
Where I think that Iran might be more promising than Saudi Arabia is that there are two competing forces in Iran - the Rouhani government and the hardliners around the Ayatollah. One concern I have is that Iran is having elections on February 26. I wonder if that - as well as the Syrian and Yemen diplomatic initiatives might - have factored into Saudi Arabian timing for killing the cleric. Will the anger, that led to the firebombing of the SA embassy, favor the hardiners over Rouhani? Not to mention, does the downgrade of relations with Iran by many regional Sunni countries work against Rouhani's genuine accomplishment of making Iran stronger internationally?
The very repressive SA monarchy does not seem to have allowed any other voices in SA.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)It is also the Israelis. They wanted to annex Southern Lebanon to get their water. They orchestrated an invasion in the 80s. The Iranians funded Hezbollah, who repelled them. Israelis can't forgive this, so their allies in the US coopt American foreign policy to keep the conflict with Iran going. They hate Russia because it supports the Assad family. The Assad's helped Hezbollah too. They trump up the Iranian nuclear threat to keep the status quo.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)And the US founded, trained and funded the Iranian secret police.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
SAVAK of course was notorious for killing and torturing political opponents of the US controlled dictator.
Lots of the techniques the US trained SAVAK to use ended up being used in other CIA torture sites during the second Iraq war.
Hurray.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)The oil thing? You mean past what is essentially the blood of the global economy, the thing that allows the limbs and organs of mass society to function, something else would be more important?
Plus Iran and Russia have been geopolitically close, and we still have a thing with the Russians.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The House of Saud has historically welcomed Capitalism's Invisible Army, an organization known for its appreciation of the planet's valuable and affordably extractable minerals.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Yes, they do. Right now, as I type this, they are stirring shit in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Why pick one over the other? Because one administration overtly hates America, while the other secretly hates America, I guess. Personally, I'd tell them both to go fuck themselves.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)That have killed as many Americans as the Saudi's have by proxy. I wish the Iranians would just buy majority stock in FOX or another media news outlet so that as much of this disgusting rhetoric would stop.
Oh and I'm much more worried about North Korea getting nukes over Iran. I wouldn't put it past the head of North Korea, as it was crumbling, to launch a nuke at us or Japan or South Korea out of spite.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It's not about American lives lost, it is about influence and regional power. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fighting one another for the dominant position in Mid-East regional politics. The United States sides with Saudi Arabia because they have influence in Saudi Arabia, and by extension influence in the Middle East. The number of Americans killed by Saudi-born terrorists doesn't enter the fucking equation because cooperation with Iran, in the thinking of a political realist, isn't an option because there's nothing to gain from it.
That's the American government's thinking, at any rate.
My thinking is much simpler: if presented with option 1) siding with the theocracy in the west that beheads drug addicts for being addicted to drugs, and 2) siding with the theocracy in the east that hangs gays for being gay, I humbly choose option 3) not siding with either of these assholes, regional influence be damned.
Apparently, that sentiment runs strong enough on Fox News to give you a sad. Or, you assumed that because I described the rationale behind American policy towards Iran that I must therefore agree with it, and must therefore watch Fox News. Can't rule either of them out, seeing as I don't watch Fox News and all.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)You mean besides Hezbollah, the Taliban, Bosnian Muslims, Shiite militias in Iraq, Assad in Syria and the Houthis in Yemen?
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)What baloney.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)Iranian-made weapons, including powerful explosive devices are often found inside Afghanistan
The Quds Force trains and equips foreign Islamic revolutionary groups around the Middle East. The paramilitary instruction provided by the Quds Force typically occurs in Iran or Sudan. Foreign recruits are transported from their home countries to Iran to receive training. The Quds Force sometimes plays a more direct role in the military operations of the forces it trains, including pre-attack planning and other operation-specific military advice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)It is not like it can be gamed by motivated propagandists, like scientology.
EX500rider
(10,884 posts)The journal Nature says the open-access encyclopedia is about as accurate as the old standby.
http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
kwassa
(23,340 posts)They have been the main supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Assad in Syria.
In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that "Iran remained an active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related activity" and that "Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia." The report states that Iran has continued to provide "lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi Shia militant groups targeting U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians," despite pledging to support the stabilization of Iraq, and that the Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on "small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons, such as mortars, artillery, and rockets." The report further states that Iran has provided weapons and training to the Assad regime in Syria which has launched a brutal crackdown on Syrian rebels, as well as providing weapons, training, and funding to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, among others, and has assisted in rearming Hizballah. The report states as well that Iran has remained unwilling to bring to justice senior members of Al Qaeda that it continued to detain, and also refused to publicly identify these senior members, as well as that Iran has allowed Al Qaeda members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory, which has enabled Al Qaeda to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere.[9][10][11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
hunter
(38,339 posts)The United States hates any nation that can't be bought.
flamingdem
(39,333 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)The name Jason Rezaian ring a bell?
Besides, Iran is allied with Russia, which means by default we've got to keep a close eye on them...
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Yet it has improved and becomes more open and democratic than Saudi Arabia' s.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)They bomb our world trade towers and export terrorism at an enormous level. We deserve them as friends. Just don't (US) complain when the terrorism finds its way home.
6chars
(3,967 posts)That is kind of a turnoff.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Sunni muslims, and Saudi Arabia is the center of Sunni Islam and has historical hatred of Shia Islam.
So: Saudi Arabia was founded upon hatred of Shiia Muslims, and it was founded upon a deal that was made in 1744 between a Shiia-hating fundamentalist Sunni cleric Wahhab, and a ruthless gang-leader Saud, in which deal the clergy would grant the Sauds holy legitimacy from the Quran, and the Sauds would finance the spread of Wahhab’s fanatical anti-Shiia sect.
- http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/11/understanding-the-power-contest-between-aristocracies.html
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)people chose a new leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini promptly started executing political prisioners immediately.
30,000 people not even excluding pregnant women and teenagers.
Ayatollah Khomeini
""The executions began in late July and continued for several months. As many as 30,000 political prisoners or more, the overwhelming majority of them activists of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI or MEK) were slaughtered.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a decree in July 1988: ”Whoever at any stage continues to belong to the PMOI must be executed. Annihilate the enemies of Islam immediately!” He went on to add: “… Those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for PMOI are waging war on God and are condemned to execution…It is naive to show mercy to those who wage war on God.”
The executions soon began and every day hundreds of political prisoners were hanged and their corpses were buried hurriedly in unmarked mass graves in all of Iran’s major cities, in particular in Khavaran cemetery in south Tehran.""
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)How many people have been killed by the Wahabists to keep power in Saudi Arabia? These nutbags were against music at one point ffs.
Not saying Iran is terrific but as their society stands now they're a LOT more progressive than Saudi Arabia and as far as the evidence shows it was Saudi Arabia behind 9/11.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)that we overthrew in 1953. And then we installed the Shah, who was overthrown in 1979. We support the corrupt theocracy of Saudi Arabia, because it aligns with our economic interests in the region. It has nothing to do with our "values," or democratic ideals.
It seems that the press is starting to address this contradiction, and the fact that Saudi Arabia fanatical religion (Wahabism) is fueling ISIS.