It seams to be an irrational element in all this “Iran business”.
It seams that USA still are pissed at Iran because they where kicked out in 1979.
USA included Iran to the “axis of evil” and have spoke upon Iran as a threat several times. This even if Iran have become more liberal after Khomeni. Especially after 1998.
USA did also support Saddam in his war against Iran back in the 80’s.
My bet is that USA are just pissed at Iran for being kicked out of their country in 1979 - and the rescue mission in 1980 that became a blunder.
There is definite evidence that Iran is supporting terrorism in the Middle East. E.g., they were the ones who sent a shipload of arms to Arafat recently.
Aide from that whole “Slaughter all the Americans” and “Death to the Great Satan” biz. That tends to put a damper on things.
The upside that relations are improving. We both have an enemy in Hussein, and they are less excited about supporting anti-US terror, and they aren’t calling us Satan anymore.
But there is still a long, long way to go before truly normal relations. ironically, I think they, like Turkey, are much more likely to normalize relations that countries in the deep middle east with whom we have greater economic ties.
We were not just “kicked out” in 1979. Our citizens were held hostage for 444 days.
**
Only relatively so. It’s still a pretty represive regime.
**
A bad move, IMHO
I don’t know. Wouldn’t you be pissed if 50 members of your extended family were held hostage, not knowing if they were gong to live or die, for over a year? :rolleyes:
Well, to start with, the President of the United States was the one who identified Iran as a part of the “axis of evil.” This incorporates an inability to understand the rationale behind an “Islamic republic” founded on the enforcement of the shari’a. (Although, considering the company he has kept, the idea of a government enforcing on all its citizens what somebody considers to be God’s law should be something he could easily grasp! :rolleyes: )
Power_Station, where did you learn English? The United States of America is a nation which is (not “are”) a unitary federal republic. I’ll accept the usage only if you debate the question of whether General Motors are making more cars than Ford, and if so, which motor makes more cars than the other(s).
However, I see Mr. Bush’s stance as one of identifying any destabilizing tendency in the world as “terrorism” and in the concept that Iran is supporting at least a few such “destabilizing tendency” movements – which would include the Palestinians. (This of course presumes that the Palestinians should be good little folks and either live in exile or under a government controlled by the Jewish majority of Israel and founded under the concept that the Jewish people are the true owners of the Holy Land. Both propositions are debatable, though one hopes not here.)
Polycarp Are you polylingual yourself? It seems to be inappropriate to criticize what is probably someone’s second or maybe third, fourth or fifth language? Last I checked this wasn’t an English as First and Only Language message board.
As long as this in Great Debates, the fact that his/her English isn’t perfect shouldn’t be part of your debate.
The USA and Iran are not involved in diplomatic relations presently. There is a strong movement in Iran of moderates who would like to renew diplomatic relations with the west, though not necessarily only the USA.
Iranian expatriates whom I know personally (I am NOT speaking for all expatriates), are hopeful. They are projecting that in about ten years or so, the moderate mullahs in Iran will become more powerful and the most conservative mullahs will be too old to rule, or dead.
Hopefully will lead Iran back into the international community.
Iran currently has business transactions with many private companies in Europe (Italy, Germany and Switzerland, that I know of personally).
