New Testingstan

I'm not really sure what's so 'humiliating' about getting your raw materials processed elsewhere

I can think of much sillier things that many first world nations do on purpose

like shipping goods across the Pacific fucking ocean from China because we have such a broken economic model that this is cheaper than local automated production

Because Iran IS a great country, with ambitions of being a First World Nation, and wanting to have at least the economy of one.


That The West is stupid enough to dig it's own grave economically speaking... Well, I don't see how this contradict the fact that depending from foreign powers for things as vital to a nation as it's Energy Needs is one of the dumbest thing you can do if you are a nominally independent country.

not saying it can't be one, nor that it shouldn't or anything like that.

just needs to grow up and get over the whole theocracy thing

RyanThunder wrote:I'm not really sure what's so 'humiliating' about getting your raw materials processed elsewhere

I can think of much sillier things that many first world nations do on purpose

like shipping goods across the Pacific fucking ocean from China because we have such a broken economic model that this is cheaper than local automated production

USA and China aren't on the world hegemon's shit list.

I can see why a country that was would value self-sufficiency more.

Also note that if Iran is a major exporter of crude oil, it doesn't have the refining capabilities to meet its internal demand for fuel.

Importing fuel when your are one of the biggest oil-exporter in the world.


Yes, Iran is THAT economically fucked by foreign powers.

they would probably be lower on the shit list if they had a secular government

probably further if their leaders stopped saying stuff like 'death to America'

I'm pretty skeptical USA government's attitude toward Iran really fundamentally has to do with them being a bad government rather than "national interests" stuff.

I mean we get along OK with Saudi Arabia and China and probably a bunch of other countries of questionable democracy freedom and apple-pie-ness, but because Iran is a theocracy they must be opposed?

it'd erode the last few splinters of whatever leg they have to stand on away if nothing else

consider these facts:

1) they signed a paper that gives them the "inalienable right" (literal words from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty) to peaceful nuclear technology, explicitly - again, written out in the treaty - including domestic enrichment

2) this big bully is pushing them around saying no they don't have that right

3) yet this bully is perfectly OK with their friends doing this and much more

4) this same bully killed your democracy before, installing a brutal dictator (yes, before 1953, Iran had a pretty nice constitutional monarchy going, with growing popular rights and so on. But the democratically elected government said the profits from Iran's oil should be used to benefit Iran's people. They nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and used the money to start a War on Poverty at home. Britain's bourgeoisie didn't like it and the government took action to undo it, but their coup failed. They turned to America for help.

At first, Truman said no. But, then Eisenhower came in and a new approach was used... this nationalization and war on poverty looks an awful lot like.... COMMUNISM!! (it wasn't btw) But they feared if Iran allied with the Soviet Union, the US will be at a global power disadvantage.

Eisenhower then OK'd the CIA - acting out of the US embassy in Tehran btw - to get rid of Iran's democracy. And they did, rolling back the constiutional limits on the monarch and giving full US support to his secret police to brutalize the people into liking it.

When Iranians had enough of this bullshit and had a new revolution in 1979, some students feared America would thwart their new democracy again, especially after Jimmy Carter accepted the Shah into the US for medical treatment, it looked like we were protecting him. That's why they took the embassy hostage.)


5) you're a proud, independent people


they just don't want to feel like they're being pushed around by the bully when they have an agreement, in writing, saying they don't have to put up with it


there's also the sanctions and deal-killers out of the US. Iran has offered, several times, to have the fuel processed to medical research levels (19.95% or something like that) in France. (Iran doesn't give up the energy enrichment - 3.5% - for themselves, now that they have that mastered, no point paying someone else to do it and wasting their own capital)

The French indicated their willingness to do this.... Until the US twisted their arm and then they back off and said no deal.

RyanThunder wrote:they would probably be lower on the shit list if they had a secular government

probably further if their leaders stopped saying stuff like 'death to America'

That's an internal matter and is no business of ours.

RyanThunder wrote:they would probably be lower on the shit list if they had a secular government

probably further if their leaders stopped saying stuff like 'death to America'

America would be lower on a lot of people's shit-list if it wasn't a gun-totting bully with the most powerful army in the world, who aspire to be the Global Hegemon ; and who totally wreck the shit of anyone and everything who might stand in its way, regardless of the consequences for others, even for its own allies or itself in the long term.

Also, in this particular case, if you want for Iran to stop saying 'Death to America'... It would help if America stopped trying to topple the country's regime ; or totally wrecking its economy through sanction and economic warfare, leading millions of people, educated people who have gone to University, to joblessness and misery.

Adr once said something about America being the only current threat to peace. And he was right, the only reason why they aren't a rogue state is because they make the rules.

The idea that every country needs to have the same kind of government which is like ours ... I'm not sure what word to use here but it's something.

Martin Jacques was right on with what he said about the mindset of the West. We think we're the best culture and are used to being in a position to force-feed everybody else our ideas.

Jung wrote:The idea that every country needs to have the same kind of government which is like ours ... I'm not sure what word to use here but it's something.

tell me more about how you got from 'theocracy bad' to 'all governments must be like ours'

Jung : The word you're searching for is "Imperialism".

There might also be a bit of (inconscious ?) racism mixed in.

RyanThunder wrote:so 'theocracy bad' => 'all governments must be like ours' now?

The thing is that you go from the PRINCIPLE that 'theocracy = bad', thus implicitly negating the right of another people to determine what is best for him.

RyanThunder wrote:

Jung wrote:The idea that every country needs to have the same kind of government which is like ours ... I'm not sure what word to use here but it's something.

tell me more about how you got from 'theocracy bad' to 'all governments must be like ours'

What do you think of Turkey, secular government but only because the military will remove the government if they try and move away from it. Secular at the barrel of a gun.

At what point does a government become acceptable to us? As long as they do what we want?

Aren't we supposed to be champions of freedom? The freedom to choose your method of governance is pretty basic.

"death to america" btw isn't as violent as it sounds. an alternate translation is "down with america"

the less violent (I won't say nonviolent, but it isn't militarily aggressive in any conventional sense) aspect of this slogan is also seen when you get into the details behind it, especially re israel where they compare it to the shah's regime and the ussr, which both fell due to internal changes - no external military attack - and were relatively bloodless

their grand plan for israel's fall is democracy. they want to see all israelis and all palestineans, including the refugees, be allowed to vote on a new constitution as equals.

that's actually a pretty reasonable request and not even close to "second holocaust" like netanyahu makes it sound. though it does come with risks - the international community would hopefully moderate some anger there so it doesn't become a tyranny of the majority. (the Muslim Arabs would outnumber the Jews in this new combined Israel/Palestine)

but, even with the jew's rights 100% protected, such a vote would surely end the Jewish State of Israel. this is where the "existential risk" comes in. it isn't because the israeli people would all be slaughtered. it is because the state of israel as we know it today would be fundamental changed. the idea of a "Jewish State" is important to a lot of people in israel, but is incompatible with the idea of full democracy in a majority muslim geographical area


so yeah israel isn't getting onboard with this idea any time soon. add in the heated emotions with the rhetoric - even when you view it figuratively it isn't hard to see why it isn't all sunshine and happiness on the receiving end - and there's tension and fear that's understandable, but just makes things worse

Theocracy is a fucking terrible system of government, but that's not a reason to shit all over Iran. If we were to leave them alone and treat with basic respect, it would strengthen the groups pushing for reform, since the government wouldn't so easily be able to paint them as working for western imperialists.

^This.

Basically, the best thing The West could do to weaken the Iranian Regime would be to leave that country the fuck alone.

The only problem being that it wouldn't be as easy for The West to put a puppet in place when the old regime fall, and the country would run the risk (sic) to truly gain independance.

I think at this point we can just say that every time Murrica fucks with a Middle Eastern country we just make it worse.

Exactly.

Also, I love that map :

RyanThunder wrote:tell me more about how you got from 'theocracy bad' to 'all governments must be like ours'

I'm talking about the implicit idea that there's some kind of litmus test of having the right kind of government that Iran must pass before it is allowed into the global community clubhouse, with West presumably being the gatekeeper of the clubhouse and I'm betting the standards more or less coming down to "our values = better" (democracy good, seperation of church and state good etc.).

Oxymoron wrote:Jung : The word you're searching for is "Imperialism".

There might also be a bit of (inconscious ?) racism mixed in.

I blame Christianity.

No seriously. It really looks to me like there is a deep commonality between the missionary impulse of Christianity and stuff like the idea that we have some kind of mission to bring democracy and human rights to the world. It's all about the idea that A) our culture is superior B) we have a mission to spread it. The same is true for stuff like communism ... really, I find it fascinating to see how (my observation) this millenial cultural institution continues to be massively influential even after the overt power of the church has waned, continuing to influence our secular culture, even with groups opposed to Christianity.

Martin Jacques said something interesting about the Cold War, it was a very Western conflict. Seriously, I think it was about religion. Secular psuedoreligion yeah, but ... it was about a conflict between two ideologies making sweeping claims about the nature of morality and humanity, arrow of history, how humans should live and organize their societies etc., both of them having a powerful sense of universalizing mission to spread themselves. I see a deep commonality between that and Catholics and Protestants or Christians and Muslims fighting each other. Note how we're considered to have "won" even though the CCP is still in power and China is growing in power ... because the Chinese adopted parts of capitalism therefore they are no longer enemies of the faith.

It's not just America, there's a reason Britain is called 'little satan' in Iran.
But yeah imperialism boo hiss.

Jung wrote:Martin Jacques said something interesting about the Cold War, it was a very Western conflict. Seriously, I think it was about religion. Secular psuedoreligion yeah, but ... it was about a conflict between two ideologies making sweeping claims about the nature of morality and humanity, arrow of history, how humans should live and organize their societies etc., both of them having a powerful sense of universalizing mission to spread themselves.

B- but the Bourgeoisie MUST be destroyed, or it will destroy US.