Are you speaking of cultural superiority, or ethical, or economic, or political, or religious, or military, or what?
Are we flashing positions now? I suspect mine are the same as Esmeralda’s and yours.
The nuclear armed government of Pakistan is entirely corrupt and has little control over much of the country. And what little control it does have it uses to plan and support international terrorism. The terrorist organisation that attacked in Mumbai has links far into Pakistan political and military establishment, and it killed about twice as many as the one Iran is accused of twenty years ago in Argentina. And there’ve been many others in India and Afghanistan both before and after that. And then there was the little matter of Bin Laden being cosy neighbor with a top military academy for ten years, and we’re supposed to assume they didn’t know - even when they threw the guy in jail that helped out Bin Laden.
Saudi Arabia executes women for the crime of magic and sorcery. How’s that for rationality. Can’t begin to list all the irrational or downright evil thing the Saudi government is perpetrating. It also supports international terrorism; like for instance in Syria, where it’s currently supporting some of the most nasty elements.
Iran is a beacon of democracy, liberality, and rationality compared to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
But with an incredibly reckless foreign policy. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have internal problems. Iran is actively imperialist.
Iran is “imperialist”?
They’re the ones who’ve had wars launched against them, not the ones who’ve launched wars against others.
Obviously like all the countries in the Middle East they’ve supported various preferred factions in other countries but thats no different from others and certainly not “imperialist”.
Nor is it different from either Pakistan, which(unless I’m mistaken) still feuds with India over the Kashmir district, or Saudi Arabia.
It’s hairsplitting to say that because Iran hasn’t sent armies marching into adjacent countries, that they haven’t committed several, even dozens of acts of war, including several against the United States, starting in 1979.
It’s also disingenuous for them to claim, and inaccurate to report, that they don’t act to extend their influence over their neighbors, or that they don’t have territorial ambitions. Their continuing destabilization of Iraq after the US invasion had as its goal the establishment of a puppet state controlled by them.
Iran, lest we forget, is the only remaining nation that openly states as its goal the obliteration of Israel. That the international community isn’t more outraged by that is due to the fact that the target of the Iranian hate/rhetoric is a nation most of the world would like to see wiped off the map. (Irrational anti-Semitism is still robustly alive and well in the world.)
Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been much more involved in the business of extending their influence over other countries by militaristic means. So by the same metrics they too should be characterized as imperialistic. The USA too for that matter. However I think the term “imperialistic” refers to something else.
I don’t think it did. I think Iran reacted to events rather than instigated them. They tried to prevent what they saw as the establishment of a American or Saudi Arabian puppet state, and tried to help what they saw as an embattled brother people.
If most of the world wants them wiped off the map, in what way makes that Iran special then. Just because they say what most think?
And it appears that the only reason you single out Iran and give SA and Pakistan a pass is that Iran directs its menace towards Israel, and SA and Pakistan direct their violence towards other nations. In any case I don’t deny that Iran may be a larger threat towards Israel. If nothing else, then because of competence. I just don’t see why you can describe Pakistan’s meddling in Afghanistan and India as any less destructive.
Interesting how the fault lines falls in Palestinian politics.
Hamas sides with the “rebels.” PFLP with Assad. Fatah wants to remain neutral (only sensible thing). Hamas: Stopping Assad priority over ‘jihad in Palestine’
:dubious: As if America hasn’t committed plenty of acts of war, not to mention plain old wars since 1979. Americans criticizing other countries for aggression doesn’t get past the giggle factor.
The real irony of it all is that Rune’s right; Iran is a “beacon of democracy, liberality, and rationality compared to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan”. They’d have made far better allies, and been far more susceptible to being swayed towards our way of looking at things if we hadn’t insisted on overthrowing their democratic government and then playing Hatfields & McCoys with them for decades after our puppet was overthrown.
Wait. so Iran is more liberal than the two countries…how? Does Iran have an independent judiciary? A free press and media? Tell me, if there is a decision of a public body against my interests, let’s say they decide to compulsorily purchase my land for a new road, do I have a right to judicial review? Is it actually carried out? If my benefits are reduced, can I approach the Courts? In theory and in practice.
I think lumping Pakistan and Saudi Arabia together is egregiously unfair. The former is an actual country. The latter is the Beverly Hillbillies.
Damn. Historically you can figure out who will lose by who the Palestinians back. But if they are divided…
It’s not criticism so much as self-defense. And while America has done a lot of things you might not approve of, our targets are predictable and in every case deserving. Iran, meanwhile, will attack any country in the world just to get at Jews.
So when they gonna start? Iran has not attacked any country in – well, you’d probably have to go back to the 18th Century.
You mean the Bel Airabs.
Then everybody loses?
You give them the benefit of the doubt when they use terrorist proxies? Strange.
Kissinger advices a break-up: Henry Kissinger and Paul O’Neill: Policy Reflections (YouTube, min. 20+)
And, to no one’s surprise, it gets worse.
Looks like Syrian Kurdistan might have its own little civil war. (Iraqi Kurdistan already had one.)
Neither did Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, so they must have been really nice people as well .
Problem is, Iran has attacked many countries, using Hezbollah primarily, but that’s not the only terrorist group under their control.
Useful idiots don’t hold them responsible for it, which is why they do it.