Czechoslovakia still doesn't exist

[caseymoz]

23. I didn't say the US improved morally.

The action in Afghanistan is foremost, quite overt, not covert. Which is the way we would have to do it now.

My point, which you've misconstrued, is that we can't pull the same sneaky business we did in 1953. The dollar is no longer strong, meaning we can't bribe people wholesale, and we're no longer the only power standing undamaged by World War II. Plus, we've declined because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I didn't mean the US wouldn't monkey in Iranian affairs, I meant it's not able to with the same effectiveness as in 1953.

And whatever role the US had in inciting Iraq, the Iranians should have thought of how awful the consequences could be for invading the US first. By old international law, an embassy is considered sovereign territory of the "guest" country. Invasion of an embassy is invading the country. I'll admit they only took several hundred hostages, and released them, but that's probably because that was all the damage they were able to do.

In 1979 when the embassy was taken, the biggest demographic in the US wasn't even born by 1953, so they couldn't have been responsible. Therefore, the first time Iranians catch that generation's attention is by foaming the mouth in rage, crying "Death to America" calling all Americans the Great Satan, and by committing a major breech of US sovereignty by international agreements that are far older than 1953.

There were better ways for Iran to overthrow the Shah that didn't involve any of that.

I'm not saying revenge is anything good, nor that the US should have done it, but it's still not smart to hit the 800 pound gorilla in the balls for stepping on your toe. Iran took about 440 hostages. As a result, they lost maybe, a half-million of their men killed?

Who won there? Moreover, they were almost as stupid and belligerent about handling Saddam Hussein before the war as they were about handling the US. Hussein actually praised the Islamic Revolution, and Iran rebuffed him. I could understand mad, but mad-stupid is without excuse.

And then Iran assured the most militant, irrational, anti-Iranian, hard-liners took control here, and those Cold Warriors aggravated the war every way they could.

No, I'm sorry. I'm very skeptical that the Islamic Republic is better than the Shah, and that it ever was. The Iranians had a lot of hope in it though. I'll admit, different people got persecuted under the IR than the Shah, but on the balance, I think the IR did worse. That's not meant to say that the Shah was good and he should have stayed in power. IMHO, he was better than what they got, something that happens in many revolutions.

Question: how was the US instrumental in sending 12-year-old boys to the front? I don't think the US made that decision.

I would have walked away from your screamin' Iranians in 1979 and would have said, "I didn't do a damn thing to you. I will vote for the first time in the 1980 election. Get the fuck out of my face." Fact is, if they had run down their grievances before they became enraged, I would have supported them.

And most young adults in the US felt the same way I did, and I'd say most of them voted for Reagan as a result. People like me had our whole lives ahead of us. We could have changed Middle East policy in the long run. Unfortunately, after the Embassy was taken, the perception by that generation was that people in the Middle East were lawless, hysterical, and hated us.

It doesn't matter how we discuss this. The Iran-US Cold Conflict will not be resolved until the generation that came of age in the 1970s has passed away, in both countries. That's the only way it will happen, as long as there's not another blow-up. Then it will take longer.