So in other words even though this will possibly cost many lives we should go to war because it is right. A very cavilier attitude towards life. Anyway this is a flawed analogy. If your analogy were correct then the US could be considered the mob since by your own argument the Iranians are justified in going to war with us even though it would go very badly against them.
We have no idea if the Ayatollahs would've supported overthrowing Mossadegh or not. We don't know if they would've supported the Shah as a replacement either. Also if you look at the history of the Iranian 1979 revolution it wasn't primarily an Islamic Revolution. The Islamicists were the most prominent and active but many of the people who fought for it weren't. The problem was that under the Shah's persecution moderate secular democratic groups were greatly diminished and radicals empowered since radicals and not moderates are usually the ones who fight revolutions. As we are seeing in countries like Algeria, Afghanistan and even Egypt religious groups provide both an ideological foundation for radicals but also an base of operations to work from as there is an existing religious structure so it was almost natural that many of the most active Iranian revolutionaries were religious radicals and that they would use that to gain power after the revolution. So there is a relationship between the overthrow of Mossadegh and the Iranian revolution.
The US is the real power in Iraq. My point is independent of that though. I don't care if America is being attacked in one of the United States, some US territory, a foreign country seperate from that of the attackers, international waters, outer space, or in the land of Narnia, attacking American troops is an act of war. Yes. Either that, or an attitude that the final outcome should not necessarily be the determining factor in what actions we take. I wasn't drawing an analogy. Neither side of the war was being represented by the witness or the mob. I was using an unrelated story (a parable if you will) to illustrate that just because actions have deliterious consequences, that does not make the actions incorrect.
The CIA document obtained by The National Security Archive by appealing a FOIA request says otherwise.
My point is more like: Iran used to have nothing to do with us. Then we stirred the pot. Then this leads to many subsequent events like the kidnapping in US embassy, Iran-Iraq War, etc.. Their anger to us is not just from a single event in the long gone past but a series of events. Having said all that. I don't think there is really any morality involved in foreign policies. I am just trying to point out how the Iranians are thinking about us.
My apologies I glanced over the piece too quickly. That said though the Shah wasn't a friend of the Ayatollahs either and my comment regarding the persecution the Shah dealt out empowered the most radical groups of the opposition. While some Ayatollahs might have supported Mossadegh overthrow I didn't see Khomenei mentioned as being one of them, but admit I don't know if he was a student or followers of the Ayatollah's mentioned. Most importantly though we don't know how things would've turned out in Iran if the CIA hadn't aided the overthrow of Mossadegh. Its very possible that the democracy movement that Mossadegh had championed might've succeeded and weathered the opposition it faced and their would've been a secular democratic Iran and the 1979 Revolution might never have happened.
This is again why the inability to consider more than one POV is problematic. Have you considered that the US's presence on Iran's doorsteps is what is provoking Iran? In your mind if you can't look beyond your own POV then solutions become extremely limited. Even worse that will tend to make some one look for the most extreme viewpoints. If the final outcome doesn't matter then you are just saying you want war for war's sake.
So when terrorist bombers attack what can be considered another terrorist on a bus with other people, women, and children, etc... That's cool? As long as the bad guy dies, they are the sacrifice of war? The final outcome shouldn't determine the actions?
The final outcome should not be the only determining factor, that does not mean it should not be considered. As for your little scenario, if the only time you know where a terrorist is going to be is when they are on a bus with civilians, you should probably take them out (though if you can do it by assaulting the bus instead of blowing it up without an unacceptable increase in risk or chance of failure, it would probably be a better option). BTW, the IDF soldiers are not terrorists, which is I believe where you were trying to go with that. On the other side of the coin, if you give equal weight to everyone's viewpoints, then nothing could really ever be considered wrong, because the actor is almost always doing what he feels is right from his viewpoint, so anything can be justified, or nothing. Like I said in the other thread, I believe there is an absolute morality. As such, looking at other people's PoV is basically irrelevent, either I am right, or I am wrong. The final outcome does matter, it just isn't the only thing that matters, nor even necessarily the most important thing. I don't want war for war's sake, I think that the regime of the Mullah's is evil and that it should be opposed, and that America has the strength to oppose it.
Certainly debatable that they aren't or haven't been so in the recent past. But at the very least they are the military branch of a govt. utilizing a system of apartheid to oppress others of a particular ethnicity. I am not arguing that it is ok to blow up buses with civilians ever, or that terrorism is every justified. But they have intentionally harmed civilians including forcing civilian youths into combat areas resulting in their deaths.
This is extremely disingenuous of you, SM, and hair splitting even Hayes, I would venture to say, wouldn't have indulged in, in my opinion. Hawaii was annexed by the United States in 1898, and was a territory of this country. Many states in the Continental 48 were territories in exactly the same fashion. Territory of these United States, and sovereign possessions of our nation. An attack on any of those territories, whenever they existed as such, was an attack on the United States of America and an act of war. That isn't my opinion, that is a fact. D&D. A Fact, Jack.
SM; I have a question for you. Do you think the US should've gone to war against the PRC during the Korean War and against the USSR during Vietnam?
We have the strength to oppose it but I (or the majority of Americans) think it is too costly to invade Iran. I suppose that was also the reasoning why we didn't fight China and Russia back in Korean War and Vietnam War
you know SC, that's a damn good question. I was just thinking to myuself yesterday that we're treating islamic terrorism much the same way we looked at communism decades ago. Can anyone tell me how different the Bush admin's strategy of a democractic Iraq spreading democracy throughout the mideast is different than the dominos theory? It's just in reverse, but it's the same damn thing. IMO. it doesn't even matter if Iran is behind it or whatever, we can't even consider anything with them till we fix Afghanistan and figure out what the hell to do in Iraq. Can you imagine how the wolrd would be today if Marshall had gone into China?
We did fight both countries. Directly in Korea, and indirectly with Soviet Bloc pilots flying jets for the opposition, secretly. D&D. Howdy!
But we didn't fight them on their soil. That's a big difference. We are fighting Iranians on Iraqi soil right now, so we are effectively at the same line as we were before.
You're correct let me rephrase: SM, do you think we should've had all out war with the PRC during the Korean War and the USSR during Vietnam?
