Would it be better for US to take a more neutral stance between Israel and Arabs since the 1960s? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 19, 2024, 11:21:01 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Would it be better for US to take a more neutral stance between Israel and Arabs since the 1960s? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: US could have taken a more neutral stance between Israel and the Arabs. Do you think that would have been better? Why?
#1
Yes, D/D leaner
 
#2
No, D/D leaner
 
#3
Yes, R/R leaner
 
#4
No, R/R leaner
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 56

Author Topic: Would it be better for US to take a more neutral stance between Israel and Arabs since the 1960s?  (Read 905 times)
MyLifeIsYours
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 637
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.74, S: -6.61

« on: May 13, 2024, 01:57:29 PM »

No, the mistake was not doing more to prevent the Iranian revolution or at they very least ensuring that Khomeini did not take over. If the Iranian Revolution never happened , there likely is a two state solution by now and peace in the middle east.

Also no Iranian Revolution means:

- Saddam likely never invades Iran or tries to later create and empire in the Gulf as Iran would be a major counterweight to it
 
- We are not as reliant on Saudi Arabia for oil as we are

- We do not need to rely on Pakistan as much to supply the Mujahedeen against the USSR meaning Pakistan does not get the influence they have over Pakistan which means the Tailban may never take over.



The Iranian Revolution was the most disastrous thing to happen in the middle east in the past century and was basically for Islamists what the Russian Revolution was to Communism.

Reverse back to the 1950s and not assassinate Iran democratic leader in place of a brutal dictatorship who supported American interests.
Logged
MyLifeIsYours
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 637
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.74, S: -6.61

« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2024, 05:51:23 PM »

The Shah only got the authority he did because Eisenhower and Churchill wanted to remove a democratically elected socialist government that was going to use Iran's resources to benefit Iran. Basically, Mossadegh was shoved from power by the West because he put the interests of Iranians ahead of Western interests, and the West simply couldn't have that. It was that same dubious logic that led to US interventionism all over the world for much of the Cold War.

This is so wrong it’s laughable.

Dude it's factual. The C.I.A. disclosed the information to the public. We launch a coup against Mossadegh to put in a authoritarian monarchy that would serve the interests of the West. The Shah was a ruthless leader who the people of Iran were rightfully in their overthrow of his regime. What happended was unfortunately in the nation becoming a theocracy, let's not be apologetic to the Shah and how America is to blame for overthrowing the leader that the Iranian people put in place.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 14 queries.