Objectively intelligent.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are some advantages to the shift to cyber warfare. For one, the CIA can create bots at 1/1000th the price of hiring local thugs.

More generally, why has there been no discussion of our role in creating the Iranian Revolution? Or the mess in Iraq?

If people are to understand the chain of events that caused Iran and Iraq to become the problem states they are today, we have to start with the dimwitted Brits' carving of boundaries. I believe it was Churchill who assessed Iraq as an ungovernable area of warring tribes long before its arbitrary boundaries were cut. That was the start of the shit show.

Few Americans would care to hear about how we installed the Shah, or understand that this stooge we installed over a democratically elected leader was a repressive incompetent who ruined the country's economy. And it's notable this favoring of a monarch would put them in a camp with Revolutionary Tories, no? Best to have a crown. The people can't think for themselves. But fuck all of that naysaying. Better to dust off the "Nuke Iran" stickers from '79.

That's not to say Trump was wrong. If Iran's leaders have to be checked, then check them. And few things send a message to the fundamentalist vermin who repress both the population and the valid, elected leaders of that country like killing a man who was basically their Secretary of State. And if Iraq's sovereignty must be breached to stanch Iran's influence, then do that too. Just be aware, you're possibly angering a population of Iranians who'd rather be your friends.

And as a disclaimer at the bottom of every story about Iran and Iraq, a recognition that this is a "We broke it, so we now own it" situation should be included. Khomeini didn't appear out of nowhere. He emerged from a nation we repressed. Iraq's Shi'a majority hasn't fallen in with the Iranians for no good reason. That accrues from our backing Hussein and the Ba'athists who persecuted the population of the country.

If we must act in our naked self interest, let's at least be honest about it.

It is amazing how well the memory of the Mossadegh coup and the installation of the Shah as our proxy has remained alive and at the front of peoples' minds, not just in Iran but the whole Middle East. It is referred to constantly. I think the last beg seismic event in the US that is comparable is probably the Civil War.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If people are to understand the chain of events that caused Iran and Iraq to become the problem states they are today, we have to start with the dimwitted Brits' carving of boundaries.

Not sure why you're absolving the French of responsibility, but yes, the current issues in the regime date to the decline of the Ottomans.

They weren't dim-witted, though. They were drawing lines to suit their interests, not the interests of locals. That's how imperialism works.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Not sure why you're absolving the French of responsibility, but yes, the current issues in the regime date to the decline of the Ottomans.

They weren't dim-witted, though. They were drawing lines to suit their interests, not the interests of locals. That's how imperialism works.

The Ottomans were no piece of cake, either, but arguments and territory and populations exchanges between Turks, Arabs, and Persians (with a few Greeks, Balkans, and assorted others thrown in) went on for 1000 years before France and England showed up and joined the party.

There is some degree to which western imperialism wasn't all that different from preceding forms. The Brits are much less special than they think they are.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are some advantages to the shift to cyber warfare. For one, the CIA can create bots at 1/1000th the price of hiring local thugs.

More generally, why has there been no discussion of our role in creating the Iranian Revolution? Or the mess in Iraq?

If people are to understand the chain of events that caused Iran and Iraq to become the problem states they are today, we have to start with the dimwitted Brits' carving of boundaries. I believe it was Churchill who assessed Iraq as an ungovernable area of warring tribes long before its arbitrary boundaries were cut. That was the start of the shit show.

Few Americans would care to hear about how we installed the Shah, or understand that this stooge we installed over a democratically elected leader was a repressive incompetent who ruined the country's economy. And it's notable this favoring of a monarch would put them in a camp with Revolutionary Tories, no? Best to have a crown. The people can't think for themselves. But fuck all of that naysaying. Better to dust off the "Nuke Iran" stickers from '79.

That's not to say Trump was wrong. If Iran's leaders have to be checked, then check them. And few things send a message to the fundamentalist vermin who repress both the population and the valid, elected leaders of that country like killing a man who was basically their Secretary of State. And if Iraq's sovereignty must be breached to stanch Iran's influence, then do that too. Just be aware, you're possibly angering a population of Iranians who'd rather be your friends.

And as a disclaimer at the bottom of every story about Iran and Iraq, a recognition that this is a "We broke it, so we now own it" situation should be included. Khomeini didn't appear out of nowhere. He emerged from a nation we repressed. Iraq's Shi'a majority hasn't fallen in with the Iranians for no good reason. That accrues from our backing Hussein and the Ba'athists who persecuted the population of the country.

If we must act in our naked self interest, let's at least be honest about it.

If you want to talk about the big picture, there is a longstanding rivalry in the Persian Gulf between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi'a Iran, and we side with the Saudis.