Should US have declared war on Iran during the hostage crisis?

[amphibulous]

You seem really bent out of shape over something that happened in 1953.

The "History" part of "Alternate History Forum" confuses you, doesn't it?

What nation are you from?

Hmm. I'm patronizing, sarcastic, and able to see almost anyone's point of view -so that I can use it to manipulate them. When you find that 6 year old child to explain what a war is, and how it alters what you can legally do to foreigners, he should be able to reveal this esoteric secret to you as well.

 

[Sabot Cat]

You seem really bent out of shape over something that happened in 1953.

An injustice does not stop being an injustice no matter how much time passes. It's important to illuminate the atrocities of the past to counteract the circumstances that could make them reoccur in the future. I could go on, but I might stumble into almost every single proverb extolling the virtues of remembering history in the English language.

 

[amphibulous]

An injustice does not stop being an injustice no matter how much time passes.

..And saying that the US installed the Shah in 53 is irrelevant when he is overthrown three decades later is very, very silly.

(More clues to my national identity!)

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

The "History" part of "Alternate History Forum" confuses you, doesn't it?

I understand it perfectly.

Hmm. I'm patronizing, sarcastic, and able to see almost anyone's point of view -so that I can use it to manipulate them. When you find that 6 year old child to explain what a war is, and how it alters what you can legally do to foreigners, he should be able to reveal this esoteric secret to you as well.

Mmm, You're admittedly patronizing, sarcastic and think that you can see almost anyone's point of view.

I know you want me to guess, but really that doesn't narrow it down much. That behavior is pretty universally found in human society.


Meanwhile, when you find that 6 year old, ask him about convert activity and how it requires illegal action as a matter of course.

Crappy, but true.

Or of course the US could have just taken the high road and let the Commies win every dirty fight they could start.

I'm sure that would have worked out just fine.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

An injustice does not stop being an injustice no matter how much time passes. It's important to illuminate the atrocities of the past to counteract the circumstances that could make them reoccur in the future. I could go on, but I might stumble into almost every single proverb extolling the virtues of remembering history in the English language.

I agree completely.

But emotion in this context will prevent learning.

If your goal is to pin "moral responsibility" on someone, are you really going to be learning anything about how to avoid the situations that lead to situations like the Cold War?

Rhetorical question. THe answer is a very loud NO.

 

[amphibulous]

I understand it perfectly.

Snappy come back! (That was irony.)

Really: if you are asking why history only a few decades old is important, you shouldn't be posting here. Or voting.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

..And saying that the US installed the Shah in 53 is irrelevant when he is overthrown three decades later is very, very silly.

(More clues to my national identity!)

I disagree.

The Shah was not our puppet. He was the legitimate, internationally recognized ruler of Iran.

Yes the US interfered in the internal politics of technically neutral nation.

Lord knows no nation ever did that before or since.

And much like we don't hold the Kaiser responsible for Lenin and Stalin's atrocities, we should not hold the US responsible for the Shah's every action.

THe lack of a formal declaration of war, notwithstanding.

 

[Van555]

Snappy come back! (That was irony.)

Really: if you are asking why history only a few decades old is important, you shouldn't be posting here. Or voting.

I don't think anyone here thinks that operation Ajax was a good idea though...

 

[amphibulous]

I agree completely.

But emotion in this context will prevent learning.

If your goal is to pin "moral responsibility" on someone,

Who says that it is a goal? Understanding moral functioning is simply required to be a functioning human being. Goals are what you create after you do this.

are you really going to be learning anything about how to avoid the situations that lead to situations like the Cold War?

Most people don't find that morality inhibits learning anything; the only ones who possibly feel otherwise are called "psychopaths." And disregarding that you are the party morally at fault so that you can start a war with one of your victims is psychopathic.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Snappy come back! (That was irony.)

Really: if you are asking why history only a few decades old is important, you shouldn't be posting here. Or voting.

I didn't say it wasn't important. I commented on how emotional you seem about it.

 

[amphibulous]

I don't think anyone here thinks that operation Ajax was a good idea though...

There is a difference between "Not a good idea" and "We have to accept moral responsibility for what we did." The US might have done the first, but not the second. The US owes a moral debt to Iran, not the other way around. (Which is not the same as owing a debt to the current regime.)

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Who says that it is a goal? Understanding moral functioning is simply required to be a functioning human being. Goals are what you create after you do this.

AlienMoonBat did. You know, the person i was responding to.

And why don't you tell me some more about how you can see almost anyone's point of view?

Most people don't find that morality inhibits learning anything; the only ones who possibly feel otherwise are called "psychopaths." And disregarding that you are the party morally at fault so that you can start a war with one of your victims is psychopathic.

Rational discourse is rarely coupled with hysterical name calling.

 

[Sabot Cat]

AlienMoonBat did. You know, the person i was responding to.

It's not so much "pinning moral responsibility" as it is learning from the past. The United States' clandestine coup d'etat of a democratic state should not have been possible, and should not be possible. The actions of the CIA should be regulated indirectly. (e.g. making it illegal for the CIA to overthrow a stable sovereign state with a representative form of government, etc.)

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

There is a difference between "Not a good idea" and "We have to accept moral responsibility for what we did." The US might have done the first, but not the second. The US owes a moral debt to Iran, not the other way around. (Which is not the same as owing a debt to the current regime.)

How far back do these moral debts go?

How long does a nation that owes a moral debt have to tolerate acts of war committed against it for historical misdeeds? A generation? One century? Two? Forever?

Does any other nation owe any moral debts to other nations, or is it just US?

Do any nations owe the US a moral debt?

 

[amphibulous]

I didn't say it wasn't important. I commented on how emotional you seem about it.

So you think it is reasonable to be emotional in calling for the deaths of huge numbers of innocent people who are victims of your country, but not in being appalled by this? Hmmmm...

 

[amphibulous]

How far back do these moral debts go?

They certainly go back across the lifetime of a situation. Eg that X started a war remains important during the whole war. And that the US overthrew democracy in Iraq, installed a dictator and encouraged him to murder and torture, remains important when he is overthrown and US "diplomats" seized to prevent the US restoring him.

Other than that I would just say "It depends."

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

So you think it is reasonable to be emotional in calling for the deaths of huge numbers of innocent people who are victims of your country, but not in being appalled by this? Hmmmm...

As I don't hold the Kaiser responsible for the atrocities committed by Stalin, I don't hold the US responsible for the actions of the Shah.

So I disagree that the people of Iran could be called the US's victims.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

They certainly go back across the lifetime of a situation. Eg that X started a war remains important during the whole war. And that the US overthrew democracy in Iraq, installed a dictator and encouraged him to murder and torture, remains important when he is overthrown and US "diplomats" seized to prevent the US restoring him.

Other than that I would just say "It depends."

Sounds like a dangerous concept.

Using this logic a Christian radical could justify terrorist actions against modern Turkey because they are STILL occupying the Christian city of Constantinople.

 

[Matt Wiser]

Yes. But Iran was not an enemy of the USA;



Iran became one when it seized the embassy and held the staff hostage. It's been an avowed enemy of the U.S. ever since 4 Nov 1979. And most Americans would agree with that sentiment. As long as they shout "Marg Bar Amerika" (Death to America), they fit that definition, IMHO. And no U.S. President, no matter how well-meaning, is going to sanction a reapproachment as long as the current regime keeps up with that rhetoric.

Many of the former hostages still today remember their guards asking them what would happen if Reagan won. When they heard that he did, the guards became sullen and worried. Because they were afraid that once Reagan took office, the B-52s would be in the air over Tehran. Not to mention that Carter's negotiators used Reagan's victory to tell the Iranians "We've got ten weeks to come to a deal. If not, you have to deal with Reagan. And he's not going to be as patient with you as we have been." The Iranians understood, and when there was a last-minute snag, the Iranians were reminded again: Deal now or deal with Reagan. The snag was worked out, and the hostage release took place. Now, was it a bluff? Who knows? But like I said, us kids picked up a lot, and we were wondering how long Reagan would give the Iranians before turning the bombers loose. Letters to the editor, op-eds, etc. all were asking that question. Finally, a number of hostages, in letters home, sent coded messages calling for military action. Like "Linebacker Three games and D-Models for Christmas", or "Curtis LeMay Stoneware."

 

[DG Valdron]

There's no need to be a douche.

I had no intention of being a douche and I certainly apologize to anyone who took that impression. I was trying to make a point fairly and comprehensively in a nonjudgmental fashion. The situation was complex, the responses seemed glib. I did not assume that someone was being a douche to me. I did not assume that I was being mocked or insulted.

I felt that there was a reasonable prospect that the problem was that the geopolitics of the age were simply not being appreciated, and that historical matters were being viewed through a modern lens. A lot of my undergraduate work focused on the geopolitics of the cold war, which in many ways was its own reality and mind set. There's a lot of things then that don't necessarily make sense from our perspective today, that were perfectly logical for its time. Any time period has its own logic, and the fact that it may be outmoded doesn't mean it wasn't valid then. Assuming that tried to engage politely and to lay out the situation.

If I had intended to be a douche, I wouldn't have bothered trying to write a long careful post. I am doing my best to keep the discussion civil and balanced and I am saddened if people have taken a different view.