Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

When is the last time Iran *started* a war?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 jts

jts

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,292 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2012 - 09:14 PM

I have a question. When is the last time Iran started a war?

Understand the question correctly. I'm not asking when is the last time Iran was in a war.

In the following link, someone says 1826. Is that correct?
http://www.dailypaul...n-started-a-war

#2 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,077 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:16 PM

Who cares who starts wars? In the 20th century it was the armaments industry, enabling and igniting the touchy nationalism of Europe,to the tune of 20 million lives, and it was WWI that caused WWII and so on.

It is preventing wars that human beings should be about, not drooling over their rights and wrongs.

#3 jts

jts

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,292 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:27 PM

Who cares who starts wars? In the 20th century it was the armaments industry, enabling and igniting the touchy nationalism of Europe,to the tune of 20 million lives, and it was WWI that caused WWII and so on.

It is preventing wars that human beings should be about, not drooling over their rights and wrongs.


Then prevent a war with Iran by not starting it. Wars are prevented by not starting them.

When is the last time Iran started a war?

#4 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,472 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:41 PM

Jerry,

The problem I have with Iran is the same one I had in Brazil when I would meet radicals bashing how USA multinationals were buying Brazil.

I used to ask, batting my eyes innocently, "If USA multinationals are buying, who is selling? Hey, wouldn't that be Brazilians?"

They used to get really pissed. But it's true.

Ditto for Iran. The last I looked, the Shah Pahlavi, for example, was an Iranian and had a whole bunch of Iranians around him. Critics of the USA often forget that fact when talking about the USA involvement in the coup against Mosaddegh.

Iran's warfare in other countries since the overthrow of the Shah has not been frontal, but instead clandestine. But it is war nevertheless. With a good cache of nukes along with repeated declarations of eliminating Israel, it's kind of a no-brainer to foresee a tipping point for the clandestine to become frontal. At the present, I believe Iran is goading Israel to make the first move. Goading and goading hard. Should that be ignored?

Saying Iran only started a war 200 years ago leaves out this clandestine stuff, building nukes and threatening Israel, much in the same manner my hot-headed Brazilian colleagues left out the Brazilian sellers to the American multinational buyers.

I don't see anyone on any side wearing a team jersey marked "Angels" in these matters. And I don't believe we can avoid a war with iran by simply waiting to see what it will do.

Michael

Know thyself...


#5 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 12 August 2012 - 11:08 PM

Iran started a war with the USA on November 4th, 1979.

Jerry, as usual, is taking his cue from tired sophistry that has already appeared. It is an invidious question as stated, because it is carefully designed like a fish trap. If you enter the sector and entertain the question without examining its hidden premises, you will -- like the salmon -- find yourself penned in. Here, fishie fishie fishie.

Here is a better way of looking at it. The folks whom Jerry has ripped off this question had no intention but point-scoring, to demonstrate by sophistry and fish-weir use of language that the USA has no justification for any action or policy against Iran. (Sigh, yes, Mr Google and "When is the last time Iran started a war" and the fishing strategy is apparent. Jerry has no original thoughts, and would collapse into a bag of urine with jockstrap if asked to tell us five facts about Iran). If the question was 'When has Iran initiated military hostilities outside its borders?" then the malignant nature of Jerry's dishonest lure is revealed.

The war that Iran started in 1979 in Teheran, by unlawful confinement of non-combatants, this war has continued. Iran was or is at war with Turkey (through the PKK), with Iraq (it won, and its client, the dictator-in-development Maliki now takes the war to Syria), with Armenia, with Lebanon (through Hizbollah), with Saudia Arabia (through the Quds force and the IRGC), with Israel (through Hizbollah and Hamas), with Argentina (through Hizbollah agents), with Sudan (Quds), with Egypt, with Spain, with UK, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Bulgaria ...

Jerry, you are in this instance both lazy and stupid. You are so uninformed and uneducable as to be a liability to this forum. Never do you take correction, never do you engage discussion, never do you do any homework, never do you start a thread in good faith.

I challenge you to write an essay about something you know about: your life, your struggle, your illness and your despair. The amount of time you spend adding grit to the gears of rational inquiry are wasted on people here. We have your number.

Troll.

Edited by william.scherk, 12 August 2012 - 11:35 PM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#6 jts

jts

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,292 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:01 AM

Iran started a war with the USA on November 4th, 1979.


Thanks for an answer to my question. I don't yet know if it's a correct answer.

You mean the hostage crisis.
https://en.wikipedia..._hostage_crisis

I know about the hostage crisis. I got it on the news when it happened. The American hostages were rescued by Canadians on the sneak during negotiations.

Unless I missed something, the wiki article does not associate the hostage crisis with a war between Iran and USA. I did a search for "war" thru the article. It turned up nothing about war between Iran and USA. Other wars, yes. But not between Iran and USA.

The article is vague about why the hostages were taken. Something about "a group of Islamist students and militants took over the American Embassy in Tehran in support of the Iranian Revolution."

About Iran USA relations:
http://en.wikipedia....tates_relations

It says there were economic consequences of the hostage crisis, but that does not amount to a real war. There is no mention of a Iran USA war started in 1979.

It does say: "In 1988, the United States launched Operation Praying Mantis against Iran". But that was started by USA, not Iran.

#7 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 13 August 2012 - 07:54 AM

Jerry:

Objectively, you cannot start an analysis of US relations with Iran in 1979.

I am extremely familiar with Persian society.

A more "fair" historical place to start is 1905. This is one point where US "advisers" began "working" with elements in Iran who were forming a Constitutional government.

In 1913, the ever "sticky" fingers of Great Britain "...partly nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1913 in order to secure British-controlled oil supplies for its ships. Iranians would receive, perhaps,15% of the profits from their own oil for the next forty years. 85% of the profits fueled British economic growth, instead. APOC eventually became British Petroleum (BP)."

Now in the 1940's, "Iran’s location enhanced its importance to the US during World War 2. Allied with the Soviets against the Nazis, the US needed a route for supplying war matériel and food to Moscow. Since the Iranian king was unwilling to kick the Germans out of the country, the US and Britain . . . deposed him and occupied the country, installing young Mohammad Shah Pahlavi on the throne."

Then, after the end of WWII, "The Iran crisis of 1946, also known as the Iran-Azerbaijan Crisis, followed the end of World War II and stemmed from the Soviet Union's refusal to relinquish occupied Iranian territory, despite repeated assurances. In 1941 Iran had been jointly invaded and occupied by the Allied powers of Soviet Red Army in the north and by the British in the center and south. Iran was used as a transportation route to provide vital supplies to the Soviet allies during the War. The Allies (United States, United Kingdom and Soviet Union) had agreed to withdraw from Iran six months after the end of hostilities, but when this deadline came in early 1946, the Soviets under Joseph Stalin remained in Iran and local pro-Soviet Iranians proclaimed a separatist People's Republic of Azerbaijan.[2]

http://en.wikipedia...._crisis_of_1946

"A nationalist party arose in Iran in the late 40s, electing Mohammed Mossadegh **** Prime Minister. Mossadegh insisted on re-negotiation of oil agreements, offering the British a 50-50 split. When the British refused, the Iranian Parliament nationalized its petroleum industry in 1951.

****
Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq (Persian: مُحَمَد مُصَدِق, IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ] (Posted Image listen)*), also spelled Mossadegh, Mossadeq, Mosadeck, or Musaddiq (16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967), was the Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953 until being overthrown in a coup d'état.
His administration introduced a wide range of social reforms but is most notable for its nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC) (later British Petroleum or BP).[1]
Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the United States CIA at the request of the British MI6 which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh.[2]
While the coup is commonly referred to as Operation Ajax[3] after its CIA cryptonym, in Iran it is referred to as the 28 Mordad 1332 coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar.[4] Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death.

Now we get to 1953... "The Shah, however, grew increasingly “megalomaniacal,” accumulated vast wealth, and flaunted it before the world. Secret police ruthlessly suppressed dissent. [My friend naj, blogger at the excellent Neo-Resistance, observes that those dissenters murdered by the secret police tended to be of communist leanings rather than dissenters generally, suggesting American complicity. I do recall hearing, I think, that the Savak - the secret police - were trained by the US. See Comments, below. (She also pointed out that I was calling Mossadegh the President rather than the P.M. Thanks for the correction, friend!)]. By 1978, a wide array of diverse Iranian groups joined in revolution, toppling the American-backed regime. Religious conservatives, perceived by the public as an honest alternative to the corruption of the past, come out on top. Ruhollah Khomeini, the cleric who led the Revolution, becomes the first Supreme Leader of Iran (not to be confused with the current Supreme Leader and former President, Seyyed Ali Khamane’i)."

Now, this was the "Cold War Period" where our dictator was better than their dictator, but there is much more history than the embassy takeover!

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#8 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,607 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 13 August 2012 - 11:04 AM

Thanks for the facts, Selene. I hope that they do not get this put into the Garbage Pile again.

William.Scherk and jts, it might be better to think beyond nation-states. While they are actors, other agencies are easily just as powerful. In Scherk's reply, he cited Hizbollah three times. Who is using whom? Consider, also the Ba'aht Arab Socialist Party that now rules Syria and has held power in Iraq. Though also in Lebanon, they never ruled there. Weakened now and having long since suffered an internal war between civilian and military cliques, Ba'aht, like al-Qaeda, is an example of an trans-national actor, as were the old Communist parties or even still today, the Social Democrats.

New York and Boston combined probably had more Finnians than in all of Ireland combined. "How many wars did Ireland start?" is the wrong question.

In fact, you know, we take nation-states for granted. We accept the German Philology theory of Nationhood that makes the Queen of England ruler of the United Kingdom. But nations are a new thing. We do not think any longer of where the House of Saxe-Coburg holds more lands than the House of Hapsburg or the House of Bourbon. It was why even in the 20th century, the house of Saxe-Coburg changed its name to "Windsor" and "Battenberg" became "Mountbatten." Essentially, World War I was a squabble within a few inter-married houses. In a previous century, Europe swung on the axes of the houses of Saxony. (Thus, still the "Saxe" part of the "Coburg" branch.

I'm just saying that in our age, to look at nation-states as primary actors is anachronistic. Nation-states still exist. So do families. So do city-states - Rome, for example (we call it the Vatican); but also Hong Kong; Singapore... But as important as cities are to our civilization, cities are seldom primary actors in geopolitics today. We are looking, really, at "corporations" of one kind or another. Hizbollah - claiming to be and occasionally acting like - a charity is just a corporation, really, an evil waq'f if you want to think about it like that.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#9 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 13 August 2012 - 11:59 AM

Yep - See the original 1975 Rollerball with James Caan, which is also an ode to individualism against the soft tyranny of the international "corporate****" state.

"In the film, the world of 2018 is a global corporate state, containing entities such as the Energy Corporation, a global energy monopoly based in Houston which deals with nominally-peer corporations controlling access to all transport, luxury, housing, communication, and food on a global basis."

Towards the end, Jonathan is the last mobile member of the Houston team. Two players remain from New York. After a brief and violent struggle, Jonathan dispatches one of the players, then gets possession of the ball, grabs the last, helpless New York player by the collar and readies to fatally smite him as the crowd, both coaches and Mr. Bartholomew watch in complete silence.
With a moment's pause, Jonathan releases his opponent, slowly gets to his feet, and painfully makes his way to the goal, scoring the only point of the game, leaving the final score Houston 1, New York 0.

Immediately following this Jonathan then starts to freely skate around the track in silent victory, and the coaches and fans of both teams start chanting "Jon-a-than!", first in a whisper and then gradually getting louder and louder as Jonathan continues to circle the track.

Seeing his worst fears unfolding, Mr. Bartholomew hurries to exit the arena in blind panic, with the realization that Jonathan has essentially defeated the purpose of the game itself. As the cheering reaches a climax, the movie cuts to a sudden still of Jonathan, against the same music that opened the film, the Toccata from Bach's iconic Toccata and Fugue in D minor."



Great movie...

****
I do not mean corporate as in the American meaning.


"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#10 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,472 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2012 - 02:24 PM

I hope that they do not get this put into the Garbage Pile again.


Michael,

Don't worry.

This thread didn't start as an insult to the reader's intelligence and character. The other one did.

Michael

Know thyself...


#11 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,607 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 13 August 2012 - 08:04 PM

Selene, yes. Jonathan E was hero in a sport designed to teach the futility of individual effort. Rollerball consumed players.

I highly recommend Bruce Sterling's Islands in the Net. (Wikipedia here.) Published in 1988, it is a prescient extrapolation to a world we know today. The last nation-state is Mali which has a (one) Trident missile submarine, manned by a multinational crew still wanting what the nation-state provided in loyalty for patriots. It is a world of truly benevolent (and malevolent) corporations where international workers from different companies create each other with a "solidarity" hand sign.

I just came off a project here in run by Capgemini and Sogeti of Paris. It got inconvenient to have the guy from India actually in India, so they flew him in. The hotel across the street sent us baskets of cookies for all the rooms they let to people from the UK, Australia, and Kansas. Being a foreign language wonk, I greeted my co-workers "Good morning" in Turkish, Hebrew, and Hungarian.

Like the hapless sailors on the Mali nuclear submarine, the conservatives within Objectivism do not think past their national boundaries. You worry about who will be elected president of the United States but cannot name the ten largest corporations. What are the most profitable?

But superlatives hide the real story:

The company was bought by Adobe in 2009 for $1.8 billion in cash. The tech guru said he wasn't excited to sell Omniture, but the offer was "something our investors were interested in, and it's difficult to make an argument that you shouldn't give them a 100% windfall in one day."


How about the oldest corporations? Many surprises for me in that. But The Economist missed the Benedictine Order, the oldest continuing corporation, in the sense that it is a chartered entity that exists independent of its members. In the science fiction novel, The Sparrow, by Mary Doria Russell, when an intelligent signal arrives, everyone else debates at the UN while the Jesuits sell off some assets and launch a mission.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users